SEC. 2002. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS. 
Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: 
‘‘(n) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—
‘‘(1) PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF EXCESS 
CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may not solicit con-
tributions from non-Federal interests for costs of con-
structing authorized water resources development 
projects or measures in excess of the non-Federal 
share assigned to the appropriate project purposes 
listed in subsections (a), (b), and (c) or condition 
Federal participation in such projects or measures on 
the receipt of such contributions. 
‘‘(2) LIMITATION
ON
STATUTORY
CONSTRUC-
TION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed 
to affect the Secretary’s authority under section 
903(c) of this Act.’’. 
SEC. 2003. HARBOR COST SHARING. 
(a) PAYMENTS
DURING
CONSTRUCTION.—Section 
101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 4082) is amended in each 
of subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ and 
inserting ‘‘53 feet’’.
(b) 
OPERATION
AND
MAINTENANCE.—Section 
101(b)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended 
by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ and inserting ‘‘53 feet’’. 
(c) DEFINITIONS.—Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is amended in each of paragraphs 
(1) and (3) by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ and inserting ‘‘53 feet’’. 
(d) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub-
sections (a), (b), and (c) shall apply only to a project, or 
separable element of a project, on which a contract for phys-
ical construction has not been awarded before the date of 
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2004. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 
Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) is 
amended by striking ‘‘2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2005’’.
SEC. 2005. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DE-
VELOPMENT 
AND 
DEMONSTRATION 
PRO-
GRAM. 
(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—Section 5(a) of the Act 
entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the 
cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’’, 
approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h(a)), is amended 
by striking ‘‘6 years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 years’’. 
(b) EXTENSION
OF PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CON-
STRUCTION PHASE.—Section 5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘3 years’’ 
and inserting ‘‘6 years’’. 
(c) COST-SHARING; REMOVAL OF PROJECTS.—Section 
5(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as 
paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and 
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(3) COST SHARING.—The Secretary may enter 
into a cost-sharing agreement with a non-Federal in-
terest to carry out a project, or a phase of a project, 
under the erosion control program in cooperation 
with the non-Federal interest. 
‘‘(4) REMOVAL
OF
PROJECTS.—The Secretary 
may pay all or a portion of the costs of removing a 
project, or an element of a project, constructed under 
the erosion control program if the Secretary deter-
mines during the term of the program that the project 
or element is detrimental to the environment, private 
property, or public safety.’’. 
(d) AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 
5(e)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended by 
striking ‘‘$21,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$31,000,000’’.
SEC. 2006. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES 
PROJECTS. 
(a) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Section 221 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) is amend-
ed—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) by striking ‘‘under the provisions’’ and 
all that follows through ‘‘under any other’’ and 
inserting ‘‘under any’’; 
(B) by inserting ‘‘partnership’’ after ‘‘writ-
ten’’; 
(C) by striking ‘‘Secretary of the Army to 
furnish its required cooperation for’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘district engineer for the district in which 
the project will be carried out under which each 
party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and 
requirements for implementation or construction 
of’’; and 
(D) by inserting after ‘‘$25,000.’’ the fol-
lowing: ‘‘Such agreement may include a provi-
sion for liquidated damages in the event of a 
failure of one or more parties to perform.’’; 
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection 
(f); and 
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(e) LIMITATION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be 
construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary to en-
sure that a partnership agreement meets all requirements 
of law and policies of the Secretary in effect on the date 
of entry into the partnership agreement.’’. 
(b) LOCAL COOPERATION.—Section 912(b) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) 
is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2)—
(A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ the first place it ap-
pears and inserting ‘‘may’’; and 
(B) by striking the last sentence; and 
(2) in paragraph (4)—
(A) by inserting after ‘‘injunction, for’’ the 
following: ‘‘payment of liquidated damages or, 
for’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘to collect a civil penalty 
imposed under this section,’’; and 
(C) by striking ‘‘any civil penalty imposed 
under this section,’’ and inserting ‘‘any liq-
uidated damages,’’. 
(c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub-
sections (a) and (b) only apply to partnership agreements 
entered into after the date of enactment of this Act; except 
that at the request of a non-Federal interest for a project
the district engineer for the district in which the project 
is located may amend a project partnership agreement en-
tered into on or before such date and under which construc-
tion on the project has not been initiated as of such date 
of enactment for the purpose of incorporating such amend-
ments. 
(d) REFERENCES.—
(1) TO
COOPERATION
AGREEMENTS.—Any ref-
erence in a law, regulation, document, or other paper 
of the United States to a cooperation agreement or 
project cooperation agreement shall be treated to be a 
reference to a partnership agreement or a project 
partnership agreement, respectively. 
(2) TO PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Any ref-
erence to a partnership agreement or project partner-
ship agreement in this Act (other than this section) 
shall be treated as a reference to a cooperation agree-
ment or a project cooperation agreement, respectively.
SEC. 2007. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, 
AND REUSE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide to State 
and local governments assessment, planning, and design as-
sistance for remediation, environmental restoration, or 
reuse of areas located within the boundaries of such State 
or local governments where such remediation, environ-
mental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the improve-
ment of water quality or the conservation of water and re-
lated resources of drainage basins and watersheds within 
the United States. 
(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of 
the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall 
be 50 percent. 
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
SEC. 2008. COMPILATION OF LAWS. 
Within one year after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the laws of the United States relating to the improve-
ment of rivers and harbors, flood control, beach erosion, and 
other water resources development enacted after November 
8, 1966, and before January 1, 2004, shall be compiled 
under the direction of the Secretary and the Chief of Engi-
neers and printed for the use of the Department of the 
Army, Congress, and the general public. The Secretary shall 
reprint the volumes containing such laws enacted before No-
vember 8, 1966. In addition, the Secretary shall include an 
index in each volume so compiled or reprinted. Not later 
than December 1, 2004, the Secretary shall transmit at least 
25 copies of each such volume to the Committee on Trans-
portation and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
of the Senate.
SEC. 2009. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL. 
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a; 110 Stat. 3694–3696) is amend-
ed—
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection 
(d); 
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(c) GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS.—
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter 
into cost-sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Fed-
eral public interests with respect to a project, or 
group of projects within a geographic region if appro-
priate, for the acquisition, design, construction, man-
agement, or operation of a dredged material proc-
essing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal 
facility (including any facility used to demonstrate 
potential beneficial uses of dredged material, which 
may include effective sediment contaminant reduction 
technologies) using funds provided in whole or in part 
by the Federal Government. One or more of the par-
ties of the agreement may perform the acquisition, de-
sign, construction, management, or operation of a
dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal 
facility. If appropriate, the Secretary may combine 
portions of separate construction or maintenance ap-
propriations from separate Federal projects with the 
appropriate combined cost-sharing between the var-
ious projects when the facility serves to manage 
dredged material from multiple Federal projects lo-
cated in the geographic region of the facility. 
‘‘(2) PUBLIC FINANCING.—
‘‘(A) AGREEMENTS.—
‘‘(i) SPECIFIED
FEDERAL
FUNDING 
SOURCES
AND
COST
SHARING.—The cost-
sharing agreement used shall clearly specify 
the Federal funding sources and combined 
cost-sharing when applicable to multiple 
Federal navigation projects and the respon-
sibilities and risks of each of the parties re-
lated to present and future dredged material 
managed by the facility.
‘‘(ii) MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.—
The cost-sharing agreement may include the 
management of sediments from the mainte-
nance dredging of Federal navigation 
projects that do not have partnership agree-
ments. The cost-sharing agreement may
allow the non-Federal sponsor to receive re-
imbursable payments from the Federal Gov-
ernment for commitments made by the 
sponsor for disposal or placement capacity 
at dredged material treatment, processing, 
contaminant reduction, or disposal facili-
ties. 
‘‘(iii) 
CREDIT.—The 
cost-sharing 
agreement may allow costs incurred prior to 
execution of a partnership agreement for 
construction or the purchase of equipment 
or capacity for the project to be credited ac-
cording to existing cost-sharing rules. 
‘‘(B) CREDIT.—Nothing in this subsection 
supersedes or modifies existing agreements be-
tween the Federal Government and any non-Fed-
eral sponsors for the cost-sharing, construction, 
and operation and maintenance of Federal navi-
gation projects. Subject to the approval of the 
Secretary and in accordance with existing laws, 
regulations, and policies, a non-Federal public 
sponsor of a Federal navigation project may seek 
credit for funds provided in the acquisition, de-
sign, construction, management, or operation of 
a dredged material processing, treatment, or dis-
posal facility to the extent the facility is used to 
manage dredged material from the Federal navi-
gation project. The non-Federal sponsor shall be 
responsible for providing all necessary lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, or relocations associ-
ated with the facility and shall receive credit for 
these items.’’; and 
(3) in each of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A), 
as so redesignated—
(A) by inserting ‘‘and maintenance’’ after 
‘‘operation’’; and 
(B) by inserting ‘‘processing, treatment, or’’ 
after ‘‘dredged material’’ the first place it ap-
pears. 
SEC. 2010. WETLANDS MITIGATION. 
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 Secretary, to the 
maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, shall 
give preference to 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 Guid-
ance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitiga-
tion Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal 
law (including regulations).
SEC. 2011. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In conducting a study of harbor 
and navigation improvements, the Secretary may rec-
ommend a project without the need to demonstrate that the 
project is justified solely by national economic development 
benefits if the Secretary determines that—
(1)(A) the community to be served by the project 
is at least 70 miles from the nearest surface accessible 
commercial port and has no direct rail or highway 
link to another community served by a surface acces-
sible port or harbor; or 
(B) the project would be located in the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa; 
(2) the harbor is economically critical such that 
over 80 percent of the goods transported through the 
harbor would be consumed within the community 
served by the harbor and navigation improvement; 
and 
(3) the long-term viability of the community 
would be threatened without the harbor and naviga-
tion improvement. 
(b) JUSTIFICATION.—In considering whether to rec-
ommend a project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
consider the benefits of the project to—
(1) public health and safety of the local commu-
nity, including access to facilities designed to protect 
public health and safety; 
(2) access to natural resources for subsistence 
purposes; 
(3) local and regional economic opportunities; 
(4) welfare of the local population; and 
(5) social and cultural value to the community.
SEC. 2012. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by 
striking subsections (c) through (g) and inserting the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(c) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out 
projects to transport and place suitable material dredged 
in connection with the construction, operation, or mainte-
nance of an authorized navigation project at locations se-
lected by a non-Federal entity for use in the construction, 
repair, or rehabilitation of projects determined by the Sec-
retary to be in the public interest and associated with navi-
gation, flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, munic-
ipal and industrial water supply, agricultural water sup-
ply, recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
aquatic plant control, and environmental protection and 
restoration.
‘‘(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—Any project under-
taken pursuant to this section shall be initiated only after 
non-Federal interests have entered into an agreement with 
the Secretary in which the non-Federal interests agree to 
pay the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the 
project and 100 percent of the cost of operation, mainte-
nance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in ac-
cordance with section 103 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE.—Construction of a project under 
subsection (a) for the protection and restoration of aquatic 
and ecologically related habitat the cost of which does not 
exceed $750,000 and which will be located in a disadvan-
taged community as determined by the Secretary may be 
carried out at Federal expense. 
‘‘(f) DETERMINATION
OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.—
Costs associated with construction of a project under this 
section shall be limited solely to construction costs that are 
in excess of those costs necessary to carry out the dredging 
for construction, operation, or maintenance of the author-
ized navigation project in the most cost effective way, con-
sistent with economic, engineering, and environmental cri-
teria. 
‘‘(g) SELECTION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 
METHOD.—In developing and carrying out a project for
navigation involving the disposal of dredged material, the 
Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal 
interest, a disposal method that is not the least-cost option 
if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of 
such disposal method are reasonable in relation to the envi-
ronmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic en-
vironment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and 
control of shoreline erosion. The Federal share of such incre-
mental costs shall be determined in accordance with sub-
section (d). 
‘‘(h) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–
5b), for any project carried out under this section, a non-
Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the 
consent of the affected local government. 
‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for 
projects under this section of which not more than 
$3,000,000 annually may be used for construction of 
projects described in subsection (e). Such sums shall remain 
available until expended. 
‘‘(j) REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING.—
In consultation with appropriate State and Federal agen-
cies, the Secretary may develop, at Federal expense, plans 
for regional management of material dredged in conjunc-
tion with the construction, operation, or maintenance of 
navigation projects, including potential beneficial uses of 
dredged material for construction, repair, or rehabilitation 
of public projects for navigation, flood damage reduction, 
hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water sup-
ply, agricultural water supply, recreation, hurricane and 
storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control, and envi-
ronmental protection and restoration.’’. 
(b) REPEAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is 
repealed. 
(2) HOLD
HARMLESS.—The repeal made by 
paragraph (1) shall not affect the authority of the 
Secretary to complete any project being carried out 
under such section 145 on the day before the date of 
enactment of this Act. 
(c) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out section 204 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
2326), the Secretary shall give priority to a project for the 
beaches of Bogues Bank in the vicinity of Morehead City, 
North Carolina, and a project in the vicinity of the Smith 
Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, 
Brookhaven, New York.
SEC. 2013. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN 
AREAS. 
Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310; 100 Stat. 4256) is amended to 
read as follows: 
‘‘SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN 
AREAS. 
‘‘The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing require-
ments up to $500,000 for all studies and projects in the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 
the United States Virgin Islands, in Indian country (as de-
fined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, and 
including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of 
an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary 
of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of the 
Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of 
title 25, Code of Federal Regulations) or on land in the 
State of Alaska conveyed to an Alaska Native Village Cor-
poration under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
(43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).’’.
SEC. 2014. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREE-
MENT. 
Upon authorization by law of an increase in the max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for 
a project or an increase in the total cost of a project author-
ized to be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
revise the project partnership agreement for the project to 
take into account the change in Federal participation in 
the project. 
SEC. 2015. COST SHARING. 
An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be allocated for a project or an increase in the 
total cost of a project authorized to be carried out by the 
Secretary shall not affect any cost sharing requirement ap-
plicable to the project under title I of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.). 
SEC. 2016. CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PART-
NERSHIP AGREEMENT. 
If the Secretary is authorized to credit toward the non-
Federal share the cost of work carried out by the non-Fed-
eral interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
for the project and such work has not been carried out as 
of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter 
into an agreement with the non-Federal interest for the 
project under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out 
such work, and the credit shall apply only to work carried 
out under the agreement.
SEC. 2017. RECREATION USER FEE REVENUES. 
Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 297–298) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘‘During fis-
cal years 1999 through 2002, the’’ and inserting 
‘‘The’’; and 
(2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ‘‘September 
30, 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘expended’’.
SEC. 2018. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD 
DAMAGE REDUCTION. 
The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, 
design, and construction of any project for flood damage 
reduction for an area that, within the preceding 5 years, 
has been subject to flooding that resulted in the loss of life 
and caused damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to 
warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the President 
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency Re-
lief Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
SEC. 2019. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 729 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587–
2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is amended—
(1) in subsection (d)—
(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of para-
graph (4); 
(B) by striking the period at the end of 
paragraph (5) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(6) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Cali-
fornia.’’; 
(2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) 
and inserting the following: 
‘‘(1) NON-FEDERAL
SHARE.—The non-Federal 
share of the costs of an assessment carried out under 
this section on or after December 11, 2000, shall be 
25 percent.’’; and 
(3) by striking subsection (g). 
(b) REVISION
OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The 
Secretary shall revise the partnership agreement for any as-
sessment being carried out under such section 729 to take 
into account the change in non-Federal participation in the 
assessment as a result of the amendments made by sub-
section (a).
SEC. 2020. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 
Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat. 2589) 
is amended by inserting after ‘‘Code’’ the following ‘‘, and 
including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of 
an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary 
of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of the 
Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of 
title 25, Code of Federal Regulations’’.
SEC. 2021. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SEPARABLE ELE-
MENTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—If, in carrying out a water re-
sources project, the Secretary identifies a separable element 
that would advance a primary mission of the Corps of En-
gineers, with benefits that could be achieved more cost-effec-
tively if carried out in conjunction with the project, the Sec-
retary, in consultation with the non-Federal interest, may 
carry out such separable element at Federal expense if the 
cost of such separable element does not exceed 3 percent of 
the Federal project cost and does not exceed $1,000,000. 
(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Operation and 
maintenance of a separable element of a project carried out 
under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility. 
(c) LIMITATION
ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—
Nothing in this section shall be construed to increase the 
amount authorized to be appropriated for a project beyond 
that amount authorized by law or to provide a separate 
authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2022. PROSECUTION OF WORK. 
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of September 
22, 1922 (33 U.S.C. 621; 42 Stat. 1043), is amended by 
inserting after ‘‘harbors’’ the following: ‘‘, including any 
planning, engineering, design, construction, operation, and 
maintenance,’’.
SEC. 2023. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING. 
Section 309 of Public Law 102–154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-
1; 105 Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting ‘‘the Secretary 
of the Army,’’ after ‘‘the Secretary of Energy,’’.
SEC. 2024. CREDIT FOR NONCONSTRUCTION SERVICES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to 
allow a non-Federal interest credit toward its share of 
project costs for any authorized water resources development 
project for the cost of materials and in-kind services, includ-
ing design and management services but not including con-
struction, provided by the non-Federal interest for imple-
mentation of the project. 
(b) LIMITATION.—Credit authorized under subsection 
(a)—
(1) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of 
project costs; 
(2) shall not alter any other requirements that 
require a non-Federal interest to provide lands, ease-
ments, rights-of-way, and dredged material disposal 
areas for the project; 
(3) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable 
costs of the materials or in-kind services provided by 
the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Sec-
retary; and
(4) shall not be allowed unless the Secretary has 
determined that such materials or services are com-
patible with and necessary for the project.
SEC. 2025. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 
Section 22 of Water Resources Development Act of 
1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ 
and inserting the following: 
‘‘(a) FEDERAL STATE COOPERATION.—
‘‘(1) COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.—The Secretary’’; 
(2) by inserting after the last sentence in sub-
section (a) the following: 
‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a 
governmental agency or non-Federal inter-
est, the Secretary may provide, at Federal 
expense, technical assistance to such agency 
or non-Federal interest in managing water 
resources. 
‘‘(B) TYPES
OF
ASSISTANCE.—Tech-
nical assistance under this paragraph may 
include provision and integration of hydro-
logic, economic, and environmental data 
and analyses.’’
(3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘this section’’ 
each place it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection 
(a)(1)’’; 
(4) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘(c) There is’’ 
and inserting the following: 
‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
‘‘(1) FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.—There 
is’’; 
(5) in subsection (c) strike ‘‘the provisions of this 
section’’ and insert ‘‘subsection (a)(1);’’; and 
(6) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the 
following: 
‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—There is author-
ized to be appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry 
out subsection (a)(2), of which not more than 
$2,000,000 annually may be used by the Secretary to 
enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofit or-
ganizations to provide assistance to rural and small 
communities.’’.
SEC. 2026. CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPER-
TISE. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary is authorized to 
establish centers to provide specialized planning expertise 
for water resources projects to be carried out by the Sec-
retary to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the 
districts of the Army Corps of Engineers. 
(b) DUTIES.—A center of expertise shall have the fol-
lowing duties: 
(1) Providing technical and managerial assist-
ance to district engineers for project planning, devel-
opment, and implementation. 
(2) Providing peer reviews of new major sci-
entific, engineering, or economic methods, models or 
analyses that will be used to support decisions of the 
Secretary with respect to feasibility studies. 
(3) Providing support for external peer review 
panels convened by the Secretary. 
(4) Performing such other duties as prescribed by 
the Secretary.
SEC. 2027. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, 
STATE, AND LOCAL ACTIONS. 
(a) NOTICE OF INTENT.—Upon request of the non-Fed-
eral interest in the form of a written notice of intent to 
construct or modify a non-Federal water supply, waste-
water infrastructure, flood damage reduction, environ-
mental restoration, or navigation project that requires the 
approval of the Secretary, the Secretary shall initiate, sub-
ject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to establish a schedule 
for consolidating Federal, State, and local agency and In-
dian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and 
issuance of all permits for the construction or modification 
of the project. The non-Federal interest shall submit to the 
Secretary, with the notice of intent, studies and documenta-
tion, including environmental reviews, that may be re-
quired by Federal law for decisionmaking on the proposed 
project. All States and Indian tribes having jurisdiction 
over the proposed project shall be invited by the Secretary, 
but shall not be required, to participate in carrying out 
this section with respect to the project. 
(b) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.—Within 15 days 
after receipt of notice under subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall publish such notice in the Federal Register. The Sec-
retary also shall provide written notification of the receipt 
of a notice under subsection (a) to all State and local agen-
cies and Indian tribes that may be required to issue permits 
for the construction of the project or related activities. The 
Secretary shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and 
request their entry into a memorandum of agreement de-
scribed in subsection (c) with respect to the project. Within 
30 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Reg-
ister, State and local agencies and Indian tribes that intend 
to enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect 
to the project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in 
writing.
(c) SCHEDULING AGREEMENT.—Within 90 days after 
the date of receipt of notice under subsection (a) with re-
spect to a project, the Secretary of the Interior, the Sec-
retary of Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, as necessary, and any State or 
local agencies that have notified the Secretary under sub-
section (b) shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary 
establishing a schedule of decisionmaking for approval of 
the project and permits associated with the project and with 
related activities. 
(d) CONTENTS OF AGREEMENT.—An agreement en-
tered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project, 
to the extent practicable, shall consolidate hearing and com-
ment periods, procedures for data collection and report 
preparation, and the environmental review and permitting 
processes associated with the project and related activities. 
The agreement shall detail, to the extent possible, the non-
Federal interest’s responsibilities for data development and 
information that may be necessary to process each permit 
required for the project, including a schedule when the in-
formation and data will be provided to the appropriate 
Federal, State, or local agency or Indian tribe. 
(e) REVISION OF AGREEMENT.—The Secretary may re-
vise an agreement entered into under subsection (c) with 
respect to a project once to extend the schedule to allow the
non-Federal interest the minimum amount of additional 
time necessary to revise its original application to meet the 
objections of a Federal, State, or local agency or Indian 
tribe that is a party to the agreement. 
(f) FINAL DECISION.—Not later than the final day of 
a schedule established by an agreement entered into under 
subsection (c) with respect to a project, the Secretary shall 
notify the non-Federal interest of the final decision on the 
project and whether the permit or permits have been issued. 
(g) REIMBURSEMENT.—
(1) COSTS
OF
COORDINATION.—The costs in-
curred by the Secretary to establish and carry out a 
schedule to consolidate Federal, State, and local agen-
cy and Indian tribe environmental assessments, 
project reviews, and permit issuance for a project 
under this section shall be paid by the non-Federal 
interest. 
(2) COSTS
INCURRED
TO
EXPEDITE
PERMITS 
AND REVIEWS.—
(A) 
ACCEPTANCE
OF
NON-FEDERAL 
FUNDS.—The Secretary may accept funds from 
the non-Federal interest to hire additional staff 
or obtain the services of consultants, or to pro-
vide financial, technical, and administrative 
support to agencies that have entered into an
agreement with the Secretary under subsection 
(c) with respect to a project in order to facilitate 
the timely processing, review, and completion of 
applicable Federal, State, and local agency and 
Indian tribe environmental assessments, project 
reviews, and permits for the project. 
(B) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds accepted under 
this paragraph shall be used to supplement exist-
ing resources of the Secretary or a participating 
agency. 
(C) ASSURANCE OF LEVEL OF SERVICE AND 
IMPARTIALITY.—The Secretary shall ensure that 
the Department of the Army and any partici-
pating agency that accepts funds under this 
paragraph shall continue to provide the same 
level of service to other projects and other respon-
sibilities not covered by this section as it would 
provide notwithstanding any activities carried 
out under this section and that acceptance of 
such funds will not impact impartial decision-
making either substantively or procedurally. 
(h) REPORT ON TIMESAVINGS METHODS.—Not later 
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the 
Secretary shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report 
estimating the time required for the issuance of all Federal,
State, local, and tribal permits for the construction of non-
Federal projects for water supply, wastewater infrastruc-
ture, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, 
and navigation. The Secretary shall include in that report 
recommendations for further reducing the amount of time 
required for the issuance of those permits, including any 
proposed changes in existing law.
SEC. 2028. PROJECT STREAMLINING. 
(a) POLICY.—The benefits of water resources projects 
are important to the Nation’s economy and environment, 
and recommendations to Congress regarding such projects 
should not be delayed due to uncoordinated and sequential 
environmental reviews or the failure to timely resolve dis-
putes during the development of water resources projects.
(b) SCOPE.—This section shall apply to each study 
initiated after the date of enactment of this Act to develop 
a feasibility report under section 905 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevalua-
tion report, for a water resources project if the Secretary 
determines that such study requires an environmental im-
pact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 
(c) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT REVIEW PROC-
ESS.—The Secretary shall develop and implement a coordi-
nated review process for water resources projects.
(d) COORDINATED REVIEWS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The coordinated review proc-
ess under this section shall provide that all environ-
mental reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, 
and approvals that must be issued or made by a Fed-
eral, State, or local government agency or Indian 
tribe for a water resources project will be conducted 
concurrently, to the maximum extent practicable, and 
completed within a time period established by the 
Secretary, in cooperation with the agencies identified 
under subsection (e) with respect to the project. 
(2) 
AGENCY
PARTICIPATION.—Each 
Federal 
agency identified under subsection (e) shall formulate 
and implement administrative, policy, and proce-
dural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure com-
pletion of environmental reviews, analyses, opinions, 
permits, licenses, and approvals described in para-
graph (1) in a timely and environmentally respon-
sible manner. 
(e) IDENTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES.—
With respect to each water resources project, the Secretary 
shall identify, as soon as practicable, all Federal, State, and 
local government agencies and Indian tribes that may have 
jurisdiction over environmental-related matters that may be 
affected by the project or may be required by law to conduct
an environmental-related review or analysis of the project 
or determine whether to issue an environmental-related per-
mit, license, or approval for the project. 
(f) STATE AUTHORITY.—If a coordinated review proc-
ess is being implemented under this section by the Secretary 
with respect to a water resources project within the bound-
aries of a State, the State, consistent with State law, may 
choose to participate in such process and provide that all 
State agencies that have jurisdiction over environmental-
related matters that may be affected by the project or may 
be required by law to conduct an environmental-related re-
view or analysis of the project or determine whether to issue 
an environmental-related permit, license, or approval for 
the project, be subject to the process. 
(g) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The coordi-
nated review process developed under this section may be 
incorporated into a memorandum of understanding for a 
project between the Secretary and the heads of other Fed-
eral, State, and local government agencies and Indian 
tribes identified under subsection (e) with respect to the 
project and the non-Federal interest for the project. 
(h) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—
(1) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS AND CEQ.—If 
the Secretary determines that a Federal, State, or 
local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal
interest that is participating in a coordinated review 
process under this section with respect to a project 
has not met a deadline established under subsection 
(d) for the project, the Secretary shall notify, within 
30 days of the date of such determination, the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate, the Council on 
Environmental Quality, and the agency, Indian tribe, 
or non-Federal interest involved about the failure to 
meet the deadline. 
(2) AGENCY REPORT.—Not later than 30 days 
after the date of receipt of a notice under paragraph 
(1), the Federal, State, or local government agency, 
Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved shall 
submit a report to the Secretary, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate, and the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality explaining why the agency, In-
dian tribe, or non-Federal interest did not meet the 
deadline and what actions it intends to take to com-
plete or issue the required review, analysis, opinion, 
permit, license, or approval.
(i) PURPOSE
AND NEED
AND DETERMINATION
OF 
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—As an official of the lead Fed-
eral agency that is responsible for carrying out a 
study to which this section applies and its associated 
process for meeting the requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and as the Federal agency with expertise in 
water resources development, the Secretary, in car-
rying out such study and process, shall—
(A) define the purpose and need for the pro-
posed water resources project; and 
(B) determine which alternatives are rea-
sonable and may be reasonably anticipated to 
meet project purposes and needs. 
(2) STREAMLINING
STUDY.—To streamline a 
study to which this section applies and its associated 
process for meeting the requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), the Secretary may eliminate from consideration 
any alternatives the Secretary determines are not rea-
sonable or are not reasonably anticipated to meet 
project purposes and needs. 
(j) SOLICITATION
AND
CONSIDERATION
OF
COM-
MENTS.—In applying subsection (i), the Secretary shall so-
licit, consider, and respond to comments from interested 
persons and governmental entities. 
(k) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.—Not later than 120 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
shall develop and publish a list of categorical exclusions 
from the requirement that an environmental assessment or 
an environmental impact statement be prepared under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) for water resources projects. 
(l) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall pre-
empt or interfere with—
(1) any practice of seeking public comment; 
(2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a 
Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian 
tribe, or non-Federal interest has with respect to car-
rying out a water resources project; or 
(3) any obligation to comply with the provisions 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and the regulations issued by the 
Council on Environmental Quality to carry out such 
Act. 
(m) BENCHMARKS.—Within 12 months of the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish 
benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take 
to conduct a feasibility study for a water resources develop-
ment project and its associated review process under the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 
et seq.). Benchmarks may be established for activities based 
on project type, size, cost, and complexity. The Chief of En-
gineers shall use such benchmarks as a management tool 
to make the feasibility study process more efficient in all 
districts of the Army Corps of Engineers. 
SEC. 2029. LAKES PROGRAM. 
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) 
is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at end of paragraph (18); 
(2) by striking the period at the end of para-
graph (19) and inserting a semicolon; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, 
removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to 
address excessive sedimentation; 
‘‘(21) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New 
Jersey, removal of silt and restoration of structural 
integrity; 
‘‘(22) Greenwood Lake, Greenwood Lake, New 
York, removal of silt and aquatic growth; and
‘‘(23) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, 
removal of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration 
of structural integrity.’’.
SEC. 2030. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES. 
(a) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—Section 906(a) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2283(a)) is amended by adding at the following: 
‘‘(3) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—In those in-
stances in which it is not technically practicable to 
complete mitigation concurrent with the last day of 
project construction because of the nature of the miti-
gation to be undertaken, the Secretary shall complete 
the required mitigation as expeditiously as prac-
ticable, but in no case later than the last day of the 
first fiscal year beginning after the last day of con-
struction of the project or separable element of the 
project.’’. 
(b) MITIGATION PLAN CONTENTS.—Section 906(d) of 
such Act (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following: 
‘‘(3) CONTENTS.—A mitigation plan shall in-
clude—
‘‘(A) a description of the physical action to 
be undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives 
within the watershed in which such losses occur
and, in any case in which mitigation must take 
place outside the watershed, a justification de-
tailing the rationale for undertaking the mitiga-
tion 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 respon-
sible 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 en-
tity 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 identi-
fied in the partnership agreement entered into with 
the non-Federal interest.’’. 
(c) 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 Program 
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
the Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
report on the status of construction of projects that re-
quire mitigation under section 906 of Water Re-
sources Development Act 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283; 100 
Stat. 4186) and the status of such mitigation. 
(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. 2031. 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 restoration to 
carry out such design and construction on behalf of the Sec-
retary. 
(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 car-
ried out under cooperative agreements under this sec-
tion may not exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal year. 
SEC. 2032. PROJECT PLANNING. 
(a) OBJECTIVES.—
(1) FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, AND HURRI-
CANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—
The Federal objective of any study of the feasibility 
of a water resources project carried out by the Sec-
retary for flood damage reduction, navigation, or hur-
ricane and storm damage reduction shall be to maxi-
mize the net national economic development benefits 
associated with the project, consistent with protecting 
the Nation’s environment.
(2) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.—The 
Federal objective of any study of the feasibility of a 
water resources project for ecosystem restoration car-
ried out by the Secretary shall be to maximize the net 
national ecosystem restoration benefits associated 
with the project, consistent with national economic 
development. 
(3) PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE PURPOSES.—In 
the case of a study that includes multiple project pur-
poses, the primary and other project purposes shall be 
evaluated, based on the relevant Federal objective 
identified under paragraphs (1) and (2). 
(4) SELECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the 
Federal objectives identified in this subsection, 
the Secretary may select a project alternative 
that does not maximize net benefits if there is an 
overriding reason based upon other Federal, 
State, local, or international concerns. 
(B) FLOOD
DAMAGE
REDUCTION, NAVIGA-
TION, AND HURRICANE STORM DAMAGE REDUC-
TION PROJECTS.—With respect to a water re-
sources project described in paragraph (1), an 
overriding reason for selecting a plan other than 
the plan that maximizes national economic de-
velopment benefits may be if the Secretary deter-
mines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that 
an alternative plan is feasible and achieves the 
project purposes while providing greater eco-
system restoration benefits. 
(C) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.—
With respect to a water resources project de-
scribed in paragraph (2), an overriding reason 
for selecting a plan other than the plan that 
maximizes national ecosystem restoration bene-
fits may be if the Secretary determines, and the 
non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative 
is feasible and achieves the project purpose while 
providing greater economic development benefits. 
(b) 
IDENTIFYING
ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS
AND 
PROJECTS.—
(1) PRIMARILY
ECONOMIC
BENEFITS.—In con-
ducting a study of the feasibility of a project where 
the primary benefits are expected to be economic, the 
Secretary may identify ecosystem restoration benefits 
that may be achieved in the study area and, after ob-
taining the participation of a non-Federal interest, 
may study and recommend construction of a separate 
project or separable project element to achieve those 
benefits.
(2) PRIMARILY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BENE-
FITS.—In conducting a study of the feasibility of a 
project where the primary benefits are expected to be 
associated with ecosystem restoration, the Secretary 
may identify economic benefits that may be achieved 
in the study area and, after obtaining the participa-
tion of a non-Federal interest, may study and rec-
ommend construction of a separate project or sepa-
rable project element to achieve those benefits. 
(3) RULES APPLICABLE TO IDENTIFIED SEPA-
RATE
PROJECTS
AND
ELEMENTS.—Any separate 
project or separable element identified under para-
graph (1) or (2) and recommended for construction 
shall not be considered integral to the underlying 
project under study and, if authorized, shall be subject 
to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-
Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of both 
projects or separable elements. 
(c) CALCULATION
OF BENEFITS
AND COSTS
FOR 
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility 
study for a project for flood damage reduction shall include, 
as part of the calculation of benefits and costs—
(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding 
following completion of the proposed project;
(2) a calculation of any upstream or down-
stream impacts of the proposed project; and 
(3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and 
costs associated with structural and nonstructural al-
ternatives are evaluated in an equitable manner.
SEC. 2033. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. 
(a) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT
TO INDEPENDENT 
PEER REVIEW.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Project studies shall be subject 
to a peer review by an independent panel of experts 
as determined under this section. 
(2) SCOPE.—The peer review may include a re-
view of the economic and environmental assumptions 
and projections, project evaluation data, economic 
analyses, environmental analyses, engineering anal-
yses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for in-
tegrating risk and uncertainty, models used in eval-
uation of economic or environmental impacts of pro-
posed projects, and any biological opinions of the 
project study. 
(3) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO PEER RE-
VIEW.—
(A) MANDATORY.—A project study shall be 
subject to peer review under paragraph (1) if the 
project has an estimated total cost of more than
$50,000,000, including mitigation costs, and is 
not determined by the Chief of Engineers to be 
exempt from peer review under paragraph (6). 
(B) DISCRETIONARY.—A project study may 
be subject to peer review if—
(i) the Governor of an affected State 
requests a peer review by an independent 
panel of experts; 
(ii) the head of a Federal or State 
agency charged with reviewing the project 
study determines that the project is likely to 
have a significant adverse impact on envi-
ronmental, cultural, or other resources 
under the jurisdiction of the agency after 
implementation 
of 
proposed 
mitigation 
plans and requests a peer review by an 
independent panel of experts; or 
(iii) the Chief of Engineers determines 
that the project study is controversial. 
(4) CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS.—Upon receipt of 
a written request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the 
initiative of the Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engi-
neers shall determine whether a project study is con-
troversial.
(5) FACTORS
TO
CONSIDER.—In determining 
whether a project study is controversial, 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 economic or environmental costs or bene-
fits of the project. 
(6) PROJECT STUDIES EXCLUDED FROM PEER 
REVIEW.—Project studies that may be excluded from 
peer review under paragraph (1) are—
(A) a study for a project the Chief of Engi-
neers determines—
(i) is not controversial; 
(ii) has no more than negligible ad-
verse impacts on scarce or unique cultural, 
historic, or tribal resources; 
(iii) has no substantial adverse im-
pacts on fish and wildlife species and their 
habitat prior to the implementation of miti-
gation measures; and 
(iv) has, before implementation of 
mitigation measures, no more than a neg-
ligible adverse impact on a species listed as 
endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1539 et seq.) or the critical habitat of such 
species designated under such Act; and 
(B) a study for a project pursued under sec-
tion 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 par-
ticipation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
publicly owned property’’, approved August 13, 
1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), section 111 of the River 
and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), sec-
tion 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing 
the construction, repair, and preservation of cer-
tain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 
other purposes’’, approved March 2, 1945 (33 
U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2309a), section 206 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or sec-
tion 204 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
(7) APPEAL.—The decision of the Chief of Engi-
neers whether to peer review a project study shall be 
published in the Federal Register and shall be subject 
to appeal by a person referred to in paragraph 
(3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the Secretary of the Army 
if such appeal is made within the 30-day period fol-
lowing the date of such publication. 
(8) DETERMINATION
OF
PROJECT
COST.—For 
purposes of determining the estimated total cost of a 
project under paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall 
be based upon the reasonable estimates of the Chief of 
Engineers at the completion of the reconnaissance 
study for the project. If the reasonable estimate of 
project costs is subsequently determined to be in excess 
of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), the Chief of Engi-
neers shall make a determination whether a project 
study should be reviewed under this section. 
(b) TIMING OF PEER REVIEW.—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 
completion of the reconnaissance study for the project and 
ending on the date the draft report of the Chief of Engineers 
for the project is made available for public comment. Where 
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—
(1) the without project conditions are identified; 
(2) the array of alternatives to be considered are 
identified; and 
(3) the preferred alternative is identified. 
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the 
Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a 
project study. 
(c) ESTABLISHMENT OF PANELS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—For each project study subject 
to peer review under subsection (a), as soon as prac-
ticable 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 Acad-
emy of Sciences (or a similar independent scientific 
and technical advisory organization), or an eligible 
organization, to establish a panel of experts to peer 
review the project study for technical and scientific 
sufficiency. 
(2) MEMBERSHIP.—A panel of experts estab-
lished for a project study under this section shall be 
composed of independent experts who represent a bal-
ance of areas of expertise suitable for the review being 
conducted. 
(3) LIMITATION
ON
APPOINTMENTS.—An indi-
vidual may not be selected to serve on a panel of ex-
perts established for a project study under this section 
if the individual has a financial or close professional 
association with any organization or group with a 
strong financial or organizational interest in the 
project. 
(4) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—Upon iden-
tification of a project study for peer review under this 
section, but prior to initiation of any review, the 
Chief of Engineers shall notify the Committee on En-
vironment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives of such review. 
(d) DUTIES OF PANELS.—A panel of experts estab-
lished for a peer review for a project study under this sec-
tion shall, consistent with the scope of the referral for re-
view—
(1) conduct a peer review for the project study 
submitted to the panel for review; 
(2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the 
economic and environmental methods, models, and 
analyses used by the Chief of Engineers;
(3) provide timely written and oral comments to 
the Chief of Engineers throughout the development of 
the project study, as requested; and 
(4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final re-
port containing the panel’s economic, engineering, 
and environmental analysis of the project study, in-
cluding the panel’s assessment of the adequacy and 
acceptability of the economic and environmental 
methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief of 
Engineers, to accompany the publication of the 
project study. 
(e) DURATION OF PROJECT STUDY PEER REVIEWS.—
(1) DEADLINE.—A panel of experts shall—
(A) complete its peer review under this sec-
tion for a project study and submit a report to 
the Chief of Engineers under subsection (d)(4) 
within 180 days after the date of establishment 
of the panel, or, if the Chief of Engineers deter-
mines that a longer period of time is necessary, 
such period of time established by the Chief of 
Engineers, but in no event later than 90 days 
after the date a draft project study is made 
available for public review; and 
(B) terminate on the date of submission of 
the report.
(2) FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—If a panel 
does not complete its peer review of a project study 
under this section and submit a report to the Chief 
of Engineers under subsection (d)(4) on or before the 
deadline established by paragraph (1) for the project 
study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue the 
project study for the project that is subject to peer re-
view by the panel without delay. 
(f) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL.—
(1) CONSIDERATION
BY
THE
CHIEF
OF
ENGI-
NEERS.—After receiving a report on a project study 
from a panel of experts under this section and before 
entering a final record of decision for the project, the 
Chief of Engineers shall consider any recommenda-
tions 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 rec-
ommendations contained in the report available 
to the public; and
(B) transmit to Congress a copy of the re-
port, together with any such written response, on 
the date of a final report of the Chief of Engi-
neers or other final decision document for a 
project study that is subject to peer review by the 
panel. 
(g) COSTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The costs of a panel of 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 preceding 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 be-
ginning on such date of enactment and ending 4 
years after such date of enactment.
(i) REPORT.—Within 4 1/2 years of the date of enact-
ment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit 
a report to Congress on the implementation of this section. 
(j) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advi-
sory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any 
peer review panel established under this section. 
(k) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section shall 
be construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engi-
neers to cause or conduct a peer review of a water resources 
project existing on the date of enactment of this section. 
(l) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defini-
tions apply: 
(1) PROJECT STUDY.—The term ‘‘project study’’ 
means a feasibility study or reevaluation study for a 
project. The term also includes any other study asso-
ciated with a modification or update of a project that 
includes an environmental impact statement, includ-
ing the environmental impact statement. 
(2) AFFECTED
STATE.—The term ‘‘affected 
State’’, as used with respect to a project, means a 
State all or a portion of which is within the drainage 
basin in which the project is or would be located and 
would be economically or environmentally affected as 
a consequence of the project.
(3) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘eligi-
ble organization’’ means an organization that—
(A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and 
exempt from Federal tax under section 501(a), of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 
(B) is independent; 
(C) is free from conflicts of interest; 
(D) does not carry out or advocate for or 
against Federal water resources projects; and 
(E) has experience in establishing and ad-
ministering peer review panels. 
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED 
PROVISIONS 
SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA. 
(a) ANCHORAGE HARBOR.—The project for navigation 
improvements, Cook Inlet, Alaska (Anchorage Harbor, Alas-
ka), authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1958 (72 Stat. 299) and modified by section 199 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2944), 
is further modified to direct the Secretary to establish a har-
bor depth of minus 45 feet mean lower low water for a 
length of 5,200 feet at the modified Port of Anchorage inter-
modal marine facility at each phase as such phases are 
completed and thereafter as the entire project is completed, 
at a total cost of $8,175,000. Federal maintenance shall
continue for the existing facility until the modified facility 
is completed. Federal maintenance of the modified project 
shall be in accordance with such section 101; except that 
the project shall be maintained at a depth of minus 45 feet 
mean lower low water for such 5,200 feet, at an estimated 
annual cost of $6,000,000. 
(b) NAVIGATION CHANNEL.—The Secretary shall mod-
ify the channel depth to run the entire length of Fire Island 
Range and Point Woronzof Range maintaining the same 
width and modifying the depth to minus 45 feet mean lower 
low water in the existing Cook Inlet Navigation Channel 
approach to Anchorage Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of 
$21,525,000. The project shall be maintained at a depth of 
minus 45 mean lower low water, at an estimated annual 
cost of $3,000,000. 
SEC. 3002. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA. 
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for navigation, King Cove Harbor, 
Alaska, being carried out under section 107 of the River 
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $8,000,000. 
SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA. 
The Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the 
project for navigation Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, 
Alaska, authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), is modified to
direct the Secretary to take such action as may be necessary 
to correct design deficiencies in such element, at a Federal 
expense of $6,300,000. 
SEC. 3004. TATILEK, ALASKA. 
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for navigation, Tatilek, Alaska, 
being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $10,000,000.
SEC. 3005. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, ARIZONA. 
The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tribu-
taries, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) 
and modified by section 303 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) and section 302 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
2600), is further modified to direct the Secretary to use the 
Mexico Plan-1st Added Increment, as described in the lim-
ited reevaluation report dated September 13, 2002, to deter-
mine the cost allocation and cost apportionment for the 
project. 
SEC. 3006. GRAND PRAIRIE REGION AND BAYOU METO 
BASIN, ARKANSAS. 
The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation re-
port for the Bayou Meto basin element of the project for 
Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas,
reauthorized by section 363(a) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3730), and make a deter-
mination of whether the element is feasible, regardless of 
mission priorities. 
SEC. 3007. SAINT FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS. 
The project for flood control, Saint Francis Basin, 
Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to construct improvements along 
Ditch No. 1 that consist of a gated culvert through the Saint 
Francis Levee and related channel improvements.
SEC. 3008. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for flood damage reduction, American and 
Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 
101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
(110 Stat. 3662–3663) and modified by section 366 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 319–
320), is further modified to direct the Secretary to carry 
out the project, at a total cost of $205,000,000. 
SEC. 3009. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 
The project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, Cali-
fornia, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is modified to 
direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of the new south
levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on the city of Wood-
land’s storm drainage system, including all appurtenant 
features, erosion control measures, and environmental pro-
tection features. Such mitigation shall restore the city’s 
preproject capacity (1,360 cubic feet per second) to release 
water to the Yolo Bypass, including channel improvements, 
an outlet work through the west levee of the Yolo Bypass, 
and a new low-flow cross channel to handle city and county 
storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet 
per second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condi-
tion. 
SEC. 3010. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER’S CREEK, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson 
Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California, being carried out under 
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
(33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest be-
fore the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project and to authorize the Secretary to consider national 
ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal 
interest in the project.
SEC. 3011. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCK-
TON SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 
The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, 
California, authorized by section 301 of the River and Har-
bor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified—
(1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stock-
ton Ship Channel element of the project may be pro-
vided in the form of in-kind services and materials; 
and 
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of such element the cost 
of planning and design work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of an agreement for 
such planning and design if the Secretary determines 
that such work is integral to such element. 
SEC. 3012. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, LOS ANGELES, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, Los 
Angeles, California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), 
is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of the plan-
ning, 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 the work is inte-
gral to the project. 
SEC. 3013. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, 
Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), 
is modified to direct the Secretary to prepare a limited re-
evaluation report to determine whether maintenance of the 
project is feasible. If the Secretary determines that mainte-
nance of the project is feasible, the Secretary shall carry 
out the maintenance.
SEC. 3014. NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, NAPA 
RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 
In carrying out the feasibility study for the project for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Res-
toration, Napa and Sonoma Counties, California, the Sec-
retary shall determine whether work carried out by the non-
Federal interest is integral to the project. In any case in 
which the work is determined to be integral to the project 
before completion of the final report of the Chief of Engi-
neers on the project, such work shall be included as part 
of the project, and the cost of such work shall be rec-
ommended in the final report for credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project. Work carried out
after submission of the final report and before the date of 
the partnership agreement for the project that is determined 
to be integral to the project shall be considered as part of 
the project, and the cost of such work shall be credited to-
ward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. 
SEC. 3015. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific 
Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, being carried out 
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to authorize the Sec-
retary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the 
project. 
SEC. 3016. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 
The project for improvement of the quality of the envi-
ronment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, being carried 
out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the cost of 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.
SEC. 3017. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA. 
Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado 
Dam element of the project for flood control, Santa Ana 
River Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
4113), the Memorandum of Agreement for the Operation for 
Prado Dam for Seasonal Additional Water Conservation 
between the Department of the Army and the Orange Coun-
ty Water District (including all the conditions and stipula-
tions in the memorandum) shall remain in effect for vol-
umes of water made available prior to such modifications.
SEC. 3018. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, 
CALIFORNIA. 
The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water 
Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
4092), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward 
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
planning and design 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.
SEC. 3019. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for flood control, Sacramento River, Cali-
fornia, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act
to provide for the control of the floods of the Mississippi 
River and of the Sacramento River, California, and for 
other purposes’’, approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), 
and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water De-
velopment Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), sec-
tion 301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (110 Stat. 3110), title I of the Energy and Water De-
velopment Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), and 
section 305 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
(113 Stat. 299), is further modified to direct the Secretary 
to credit the non-Federal interest up to $4,000,000 toward 
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for costs in-
curred by the non-Federal interest in carrying out activities 
(including the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas) associated 
with environmental compliance for the project if the Sec-
retary determines that the activities are integral to the 
project. 
SEC. 3020. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 
The project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, Cali-
fornia, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is modi-
fied to direct the Secretary to credit not more than 
$2,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project for the cost of the work carried out by the non-Fed-
eral interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
for the project if the Secretary determines the work is inte-
gral to the project.
SEC. 3021. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 
The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as the By-
pass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated August 
19, 1998, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modi-
fied to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at 
a total cost of $140,328,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $70,164,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$70,164,000. The non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
shall be subject to section 103(a)(3) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)(3)). 
SEC. 3022. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut 
Creek Channel, California, being carried out under section 
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 
U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
cost of 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 
and to authorize the Secretary to consider national eco-
system restoration benefits in determining the Federal in-
terest in the project. 
SEC. 3023. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for improvement of the quality of the envi-
ronment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, 
being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified 
to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partner-
ship agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3024. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/
San Pablo Creek Phase II, California, being carried out 
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary 
to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal in-
terest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
to the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider
national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 
Federal interest in the project. 
SEC. 3025. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. 
Section 310 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 301) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: 
‘‘(d) CREDIT.—After completion of the study, the Sec-
retary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the cost of nourishment and renourishment 
associated with the shore protection project incurred by the 
non-Federal interest to respond to damages to Brevard 
County beaches that are the result of a Federal navigation 
project, as determined in the final report for the study.’’.
SEC. 3026. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, 
FLORIDA. 
The project for shore protection, Broward County and 
Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), and modi-
fied by section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the cost of mitigation construction and derelict 
erosion control structure removal 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. 
SEC. 3027. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA. 
The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero 
Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under sec-
tion 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073) 
by Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by 
House Resolution dated December 15, 1970, and modified 
by section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2000 (114 Stat. 2602), is further modified to direct the Sec-
retary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the cost of 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. 
SEC. 3028. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA. 
The project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach, 
Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River 
and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized 
under section 1001(b) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), and reauthorized by sec-
tion 364(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 (113 Stat. 313), is modified to direct the Secretary 
to construct the project, at a total cost of $12,926,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $6,547,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,379,000, and at an estimated average 
annual cost of $925,000 for periodic nourishment over the 
50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Fed-
eral cost of $468,500 and an estimated annual non-Federal 
cost of $456,500. 
SEC. 3029. MANATEE HARBOR, FLORIDA. 
The project for navigation, Manatee Harbor, Florida, 
authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093) and modified by sec-
tion 102(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4612), is further modified—
(1) to include the construction of an extension of 
the south channel a distance of approximately 1584 
feet consistent with the general reevaluation report, 
dated April 2002, prepared by the Jacksonville Dis-
trict Corps of Engineers, at a total cost of 
$11,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$8,475,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$2,825,000; 
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
in-kind services and materials provided for the project 
by the non-Federal interest; 
(3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of
planning, design, and construction work carried out 
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the part-
nership agreement for the project if the Secretary de-
termines that the work is integral to the project; and 
(4) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the 
project as modified at a total cost of $61,500,000.
SEC. 3030. TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA. 
The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, 
referred to in section 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042), is modified to direct 
the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and construc-
tion 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.
SEC. 3031. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA. 
The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend 
Channel, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) 
is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, 
design, and construction work carried out by the non-Fed-
eral interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.
SEC. 3032. MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA. 
The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, 
Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and 
modified by section 315 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 302), is further modified to include 
as a project purpose environmental mitigation required be-
fore July 18, 2003, by Federal, State, and local environ-
mental agencies for unauthorized or unanticipated environ-
mental impacts within, or in the vicinity of, the authorized 
project. 
SEC. 3033. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO. 
The project for flood damage reduction, Little Wood 
River, Gooding, Idaho, being carried out under section 205 
of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modi-
fied—
(1) to authorize the non-Federal interest to pro-
vide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project in the form of services, materials, sup-
plies, or other in-kind contributions; 
(2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to use 
funds made available under any other Federal pro-
gram toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project if such use of the funds is permitted under the 
other Federal program; and
(3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project, to make 
a determination under section 103(m) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s ability to pay. 
SEC. 3034. HENNEPIN-HOPPER LAKES, ILLINOIS. 
(a) PROJECT PURPOSE.—The project for flood control, 
Hennepin levees, Illinois, authorized by the Flood Control 
Act of June 26, 1936 (35 Stat. 1583), is modified to add 
environmental restoration as a project purpose. 
(b) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of 
Federal funds that may be expended for the project for im-
provement of the quality of the environment, Hennepin-
Hopper Lakes, Illinois, being carried out under section 
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2309a), shall be $7,500,000. 
(c) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect 
the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing 
the construction of certain public works on rivers and har-
bors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved 
August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).
SEC. 3035. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BIG MUDDY RIVER, ILLI-
NOIS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Mis-
sissippi River and Big Muddy River, Illinois, authorized 
by the Flood Control Act of 1938, is modified to authorize 
the Secretary to carry out repair and rehabilitation of the 
project at a total cost of $22,600,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $16,950,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $5,650,000, and to perform operation and mainte-
nance of the project thereafter. 
(b) OTHER ASSISTANCE.—Federal assistance made 
available through the Department of Agriculture may be 
used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the costs 
of the repair and rehabilitation under this section. 
(c) UNITED STATES LANDS.—Costs under this section 
for the repair and rehabilitation allocable to the protection 
of lands owned by the United States shall be a Federal re-
sponsibility. The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from 
the Secretary of Agriculture for the costs allocated to pro-
tecting lands owned by the Department of Agriculture. 
(d) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NON-FEDERAL 
LANDS.—The cost of operation and maintenance under this 
section allocated to protecting non-Federal lands shall be 
a non-Federal responsibility.
SEC. 3036. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS. 
(a) PROJECT PURPOSE.—The project for flood control 
at Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the 
Flood Control Act of June 26, 1936 (35 Stat. 1584), is 
modified to add environmental restoration as a project pur-
pose. 
(b) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of 
Federal funds that may be expended for the project for im-
provement of the quality of the environment, Spunky Bot-
toms, Illinois, being carried out under section 1135 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2309a), shall be $7,500,000. 
(c) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect 
the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing 
the construction of certain public works on rivers and har-
bors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved 
August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).
SEC. 3037. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS. 
(a) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of 
Federal funds that may be expended for the project for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being car-
ried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000. 
(b) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect 
the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance
under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing 
the construction of certain public works on rivers and har-
bors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved 
August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 
SEC. 3038. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA. 
The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, In-
diana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to carry out the project in accord-
ance with the postauthorization change report dated August 
2000, at a total cost of $186,300,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $136,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $49,700,000. 
SEC. 3039. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA. 
The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West 
Fork of White River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of 
the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of cer-
tain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, 
and other purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 
1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
303–304), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to 
undertake the riverfront alterations described in the Central 
Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, dated February
1994, for the Fall Creek Reach feature, at a total cost of 
$28,545,000 and to direct the Secretary to credit toward 
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
planning, 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.
SEC. 3040. WOLF LAKE, INDIANA. 
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wolf 
Lake, Indiana, being carried out under section 206 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 
is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, 
design, and construction work carried out by the non-Fed-
eral interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project. 
SEC. 3041. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY. 
The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for 
flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and 
Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Ken-
tucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 
1339), is modified to direct the Secretary to take measures
to provide a 100-year level of flood protection for the city 
of Prestonsburg.
SEC. 3042. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, 
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED. 
The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
Parish Watershed, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) 
and modified by section 116 of Division D of Public Law 
108–7 (117 Stat. 140), is further modified to direct the Sec-
retary to carry out the project with the cost sharing for the 
project determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996. 
SEC. 3043. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603–2604) is 
amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, op-
erate, and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A 
Regional Visitor Center in the vicinity of Morgan 
City, Louisiana, in consultation with the State of 
Louisiana, to provide information to the public on 
the Atchafalaya River system and other associated 
waterways that have influenced surrounding commu-
nities, and national and local water resources devel-
opment of the Army Corps of Engineers in South 
Central Louisiana; and’’. 
(b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 315(b) of such 
Act is amended by striking ‘‘(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)(2)’’. 
(c) DONATIONS.—Section 315 of such Act is amended 
by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(c) DONATIONS.—In carrying out subsection (a)(1), 
the Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept 
the donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services 
from non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit cor-
porations.’’. 
SEC. 
3044. 
PUBLIC 
ACCESS, 
ATCHAFALAYA 
BASIN 
FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA. 
The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin 
Floodway System, Louisiana, project, authorized by the 
Water Resources Development Act 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), 
is modified to authorize the Secretary to acquire from will-
ing sellers the fee interest, exclusive of oil, gas, and min-
erals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land within the 
Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public access 
feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, to en-
hance fish and wildlife resources, at a total cost of 
$4,000,000.
SEC. 3045. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI 
RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA. 
The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, 
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 
Shreveport, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) 
and modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), 
section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2572), is fur-
ther modified to authorize the purchase and reforesting of 
lands which have been cleared or converted to agricultural 
uses. 
SEC. 3046. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA. 
The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, au-
thorized as part of the project for hurricane-flood protection 
on Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077) and modified 
by section 365 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (110 Stat. 3739), is further modified to direct the Sec-
retary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the costs of relocating oyster beds in the Davis 
Pond project area if the Secretary determines that the work 
is integral to the Mississippi Delta Region project.
SEC. 3047. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA. 
The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for hur-
ricane protection, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), is modified to author-
ize the Secretary to carry out the work on the St. Jude to 
City Price, Upper Reach A back levee. The Federal share 
of the cost of such work shall be 70 percent. 
SEC. 3048. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF 
HARVEY CANAL), LOUISIANA. 
Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 304–305) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) by striking ‘‘operation and mainte-
nance’’ and inserting ‘‘operation, maintenance, 
rehabilitation, repair, and replacement’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘Algiers Channel’’ and in-
serting ‘‘Algiers Canal Levees’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the 
cost of the project shall be 35 percent.’’.
SEC. 3049. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE. 
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project being carried out under section 111 
of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for 
the mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project
100
for navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be 
$10,000,000.
SEC. 3050. UNION RIVER, MAINE. 
The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, au-
thorized by the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act mak-
ing appropriations for the construction, repair, and preser-
vation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and 
for other purposes’’, approved June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215), 
is modified by redesignating as an anchorage area that por-
tion of the project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin and 
lying northerly of a line commencing at a point 
N315,975.13, E1,004,424.86 thence running north 61 de-
grees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about 132.34 feet to 
a point N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61.
SEC. 3051. CASS RIVER, SPAULDING TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduc-
tion, Cass River, Spaulding Township, Saginaw County, 
Michigan, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to incor-
porate flood control works constructed by the non-Federal 
interests between Sheridan Road and East Street (M–13) 
if the Secretary determines that the inclusion of such flood 
control works is feasible. 
(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work
101
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. 
SEC. 3052. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHI-
GAN. 
(a) 
IN
GENERAL.—The 
project 
for 
emergency 
streambank and shoreline protection, Detroit River Shore-
line, Detroit, Michigan, being carried out under section 14 
of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), is modi-
fied to include measures to enhance public access. 
(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for 
the project shall be $3,000,000. 
SEC. 3053. WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE, MUSKEGON, 
MICHIGAN. 
(a) 
IN
GENERAL.—The 
project 
for 
emergency 
streambank and shoreline protection, Water Resources In-
stitute, Muskegon, Michigan, being carried out under sec-
tion 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), 
is modified to provide for completion of shoreline protection 
measures in accordance with the approved plans and speci-
fications for Grand Valley State University, Lake Michigan 
Center, dated August 6, 2001.
102
(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for 
the project shall be $2,000,000. 
(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design 
and implementation of shoreline protection measures car-
ried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary deter-
mines that the work is integral to the project. 
SEC. 3054. SAGINAW RIVER, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN. 
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for emergency streambank protec-
tion, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan, being carried out 
under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
701r), shall be $2,000,000. 
SEC. 3055. ADA, MINNESOTA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduc-
tion, Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out 
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
U.S.C. 701s), is modified to authorize the Secretary to con-
sider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining 
the Federal interest in the project. 
(b) EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS.—In evalu-
ating the economic benefits and costs for the project, the 
Secretary shall not consider the emergency levee adjacent
103
to Judicial Ditch No. 51 in the determination of conditions 
existing prior to construction of the project. 
(c) SPECIAL RULE.—In evaluating and implementing 
the project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal inter-
est to participate in the financing of the project in accord-
ance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the 
Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section 
is necessary to implement the project. 
SEC. 3056. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Duluth 
Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota, being carried out 
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 
U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 321 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is fur-
ther modified to authorize the Secretary to provide public 
access and recreational facilities as generally described in 
the Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment, 
McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth, Minnesota, dated 
August 1999.
(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall provide credit to-
ward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
the costs of design work carried out before the date of the 
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary deter-
mines that the work is integral to the project.
104
(c) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for 
the project shall be $5,000,000.
SEC. 3057. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 
The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Fed-
eral share of the cost of the navigation project for Grand 
Portage Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under section 107 
of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and 
modified by section 312 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), for the costs of design work 
carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for 
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is inte-
gral to the project. 
SEC. 3058. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is directed to imple-
ment under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
(33 U.S.C. 701s) the locally preferred plan for flood damage 
reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, substantially in ac-
cordance with the detailed project report dated 2002, at a 
total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$4,000,000. 
(b) PROJECT FINANCING.—In evaluating and imple-
menting the project under this section, the Secretary shall 
allow the non-Federal interests to participate in the financ-
105
ing 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 detailed project report evaluation indi-
cates that applying such section is necessary to implement 
the project. 
(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the project the cost of design and con-
struction work carried out by the non-Federal interest be-
fore date of execution of a partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
to the project. 
(d) MAXIMUM FUNDING.—The maximum amount of 
Federal funds that may be expended for the flood damage 
reduction shall be $8,000,000. 
SEC. 3059. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. 
Section 527 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2657) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting after ‘‘June 30, 
1999’’ the following ‘‘, and including Hennepin Is-
land and adjacent areas on the east side of the Mis-
sissippi River’’; and 
(2) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ 
and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’.
106
SEC. 3060. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA. 
The project for flood control, Red Lake River at 
Crookston, Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
278), is modified to include flood protection for the adjacent 
and interconnected areas generally known as the Sampson 
and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the 
Feasibility Report Supplement, Local Flood Protection, 
Crookston, Minnesota, at a total cost of $25,000,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $16,250,000 and an estimated 
non-Federal cost of $8,750,000. 
SEC. 3061. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA. 
The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, au-
thorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to include oper-
ation and maintenance of the general navigation facilities 
as a Federal responsibility. 
SEC. 3062. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 
The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Min-
nesota, carried out under section 107 of the River and Har-
bor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include op-
eration and maintenance of the general navigation facilities 
as a Federal responsibility. 
SEC. 3063. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Two 
Harbors, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107
107
of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is 
modified to include construction of a dredged material dis-
posal facility, including actions required to clear the site. 
(b) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—Non-
Federal interests shall be responsible for providing all lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for the 
construction of the dredged material disposal facility. 
(c) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for 
the project shall be $5,000,000.
SEC. 3064. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. 
The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, 
Harrison County, Mississippi, being carried out under sec-
tion 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(33 U.S.C. 2326) is modified to authorize the non-Federal 
interest to provide any portion of the non-Federal share of 
the cost of the project in the form of services, materials, sup-
plies, or other in-kind contributions. 
SEC. 3065. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, 
MISSOURI. 
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for flood damage reduction, Bois 
Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, being carried 
out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
U.S.C. 701s), shall be $25,000,000.
108
SEC. 3066. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA. 
The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage 
reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, author-
ized by section 101(b)(20) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified—
(1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit to-
ward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
or reimbursement for the costs of any work that has 
been or will be performed by the non-Federal interest 
before, on, or after the approval of the project partner-
ship agreement, including work performed by the non-
Federal interest in connection with the design and 
construction of 7 upstream detention storage struc-
tures, if the Secretary determines that the work is in-
tegral to the project; 
(2) to require that in-kind work to be credited 
under paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and 
(3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance 
funds from the non-Federal interest as needed to 
maintain the project schedule.
SEC. 3067. ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO. 
The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation re-
port, dated March 1999, for the project for flood protection, 
Alamogordo, New Mexico, authorized by section 203 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 85), and determine if 
the locally preferred flood detention basin would provide the
109
same level of flood protection for the north side of the city 
of Alamogordo at a cost that is not greater than the cost 
of authorized channel improvements. If the Secretary deter-
mines that the flood detention basin is feasible, would pro-
vide the same level of flood protection, and can be con-
structed at the no additional cost, the Secretary may con-
struct the flood detention basin instead of the channel im-
provements. The Federal share of the cost of the flood deten-
tion basin alternative shall be calculated in the same man-
ner as if the channel improvements project was being con-
structed. 
SEC. 3068. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK. 
The project for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, 
Bronx, New York, authorized by section 554 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), is 
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, 
at a total cost of $18,000,000.
SEC. 3069. TIMES BEACH, BUFFALO, NEW YORK. 
The project for improvement of the quality of the envi-
ronment, Times Beach, Buffalo, New York, being carried 
out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251), is modified to direct the Sec-
retary to credit not more than $750,000 toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for the cost of plan-
ning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-
110
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
for the project if the Secretary determines the work is inte-
gral to the project.
SEC. 3070. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW 
YORK AND NEW JERSEY. 
The navigation project, Port of New York and New 
Jersey, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 
101(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2576), is modified—
(1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-
Federal interest to construct a temporary dredged 
material storage facility to receive dredged material 
from the project if—
(A) the non-Federal interest submits, in 
writing, a list of potential sites for the tem-
porary storage facility to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
of Representatives, the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate, and the 
Secretary at least 180 days before the selection of 
the final site; and 
(B) at least 70 percent of the dredged mate-
rial generated in connection with the project 
suitable for beneficial reuse will be used at sites
111
in the State of New Jersey to the extent that 
there are sufficient sites available; and 
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
construction of the temporary storage facility if the 
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.
SEC. 3071. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM. 
Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(c) NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM DEFINED.—
In this section, the term ‘New York State Canal System’ 
means the 524 miles of navigable canal that comprise the 
New York State Canal System, including the Erie, Cayuga-
Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals and the historic 
alignments of these canals, including the cities of Albany 
and Buffalo.’’.
SEC. 3072. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 
Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to 
the Secretary in October 1999 of all costs associated with 
present and future water storage costs at Arcadia Lake, 
Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract 
Number DACW56–79–C–002 shall satisfy the obligations of 
the city under that contract.
112
SEC. 3073. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, 
MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OREGON. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental res-
toration, Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie 
Subbasin, Oregon, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) 
and modified by section 344 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 308), is further modified 
to direct the Secretary to pay, subject to the availability 
of appropriations, compensation for losses to small business 
attributable to the implementation of the drawdown con-
ducted as a part of project implementation in 2002. 
(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—Not later than 
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary shall establish, and provide public notice of, a pro-
gram—
(1) to receive claims for compensation for losses 
to small business attributable to the implementation 
of the drawdown conducted as a part of project imple-
mentation in 2002; 
(2) to evaluate claims for such losses; and 
(3) to pay claims for such losses. 
(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM.—In carrying out 
the program established under subsection (b), the Secretary 
shall provide—
113
(1) public notice of the existence of the program 
sufficient to reach those in the area that may have 
suffered losses to small businesses; 
(2) a period for the submission of claims of not 
fewer than 45 days and not greater than 75 days 
from the date of the first public notice of the existence 
of the program; 
(3) for the evaluation of each claim submitted to 
the Secretary under the program and a determination 
of whether the claim constitutes a loss to a small busi-
ness on or before the last day of the 30-day period be-
ginning on the date of submission of the claim; and 
(4) for the payment of each claim that the Sec-
retary determines constitutes a loss to a small busi-
ness on or before the last day of the 30-day period be-
ginning on the date of the Secretary’s determination.
(d) LOSS TO A SMALL BUSINESS DEFINED.—In this 
section, the term ‘‘loss to a small business’’ means docu-
mented financial losses associated with commercial activity 
of a small business that can be attributed to the turbidity 
levels in the McKenzie River being higher than those antici-
pated in the original planning documents and public an-
nouncements existing before the initiation of the drawdown 
in 2002. Commercial losses include decline in sales, loss of 
revenue (including loss of revenue from canceled or delayed
114
reservations at lodging establishments), and any other fi-
nancial losses that can be shown to be associated with the 
elevated turbidity levels in the McKenzie River in 2002. 
(e) PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.—The payment of claims for 
losses to small businesses shall be a Federal responsibility. 
SEC. 3074. FRENCH CREEK, UNION CITY DAM, PENNSYL-
VANIA. 
The project for flood control French Creek, Union City 
Dam, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1189), is modified to include 
recreation as a project purpose. 
SEC. 3075. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT OLYPHANT, PENNSYL-
VANIA. 
The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at 
Olyphant, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(16) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4803), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 
the project, at a total cost of $20,000,000. 
SEC. 3076. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT SCRANTON, PENNSYL-
VANIA. 
The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at 
Scranton, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(17) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4803), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 
the project, at a total cost of $23,000,000.
115
SEC. 3077. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA. 
The Secretary may take such action as may be nec-
essary, including construction of a breakwater, to prevent 
shoreline erosion between .07 and 2.7 miles south of Penn-
sylvania State Route 994 on the east shore of Raystown 
Lake, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 3078. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS 
CREEK, 
ALLEGHENY 
COUNTY, 
PENNSYL-
VANIA. 
The 
project 
for 
aquatic 
ecosystem 
restoration, 
Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania, being carried out under section 206 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 
2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit up to 
$400,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project for planning and design 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. 
SEC. 3079. SOLOMON’S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYL-
VANIA. 
The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Penn-
sylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modi-
fied to include as a project element the project for flood con-
trol for Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
116
SEC. 3080. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA. 
Section 313(h)(2) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4847; 109 Stat. 407; 117 Stat. 142) 
is amended by striking ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, Beford, 
Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, 
Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Somerset, 
Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties’’ and in-
serting ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, 
Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, 
Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland Coun-
ties’’. 
SEC. 3081. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA. 
In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming 
Valley, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), 
the Secretary shall coordinate with non-Federal interests to 
review opportunities for increased public access. 
SEC. 3082. LITTLE LIMESTONE CREEK, JONESBOROUGH, 
TENNESSEE. 
In evaluating and implementing the project for flood 
damage reduction, Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, 
Tennessee, under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), the Secretary shall allow the non-
Federal interest 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
117
extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that apply-
ing such section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 3083. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Cedar 
Bayou, Texas, reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), 
is modified—
(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the 
project to a depth of 10 feet by 100 feet wide from 
mile 2.5 to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou if the Secretary 
determines that the project is feasible; and 
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
planning and design work carried out by the non-
Federal interest for the project if the Secretary deter-
mines that such work is integral to the project. 
(b) COST SHARING.—Cost sharing for construction 
and operation and maintenance of the project shall be deter-
mined in accordance with section 101 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211). 
SEC. 3084. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not take any 
legal or administrative action seeking to remove a Lake 
Kemp improvement before the earlier of January 1, 2020,
118
or the date of any transfer of ownership of the improvement 
occurring after the date of enactment of this Act. 
(b) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—The United States, or 
any of its officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable 
for any injury, loss, or damage accruing to the owners of 
a Lake Kemp improvement, their lessees, or occupants as 
a result of any flooding or inundation of such improvements 
by the waters of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or for such in-
jury, loss, or damage as may occur through the operation 
and maintenance of the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in 
any manner. 
(c) LAKE KEMP IMPROVEMENT DEFINED.—In this sec-
tion, the term ‘‘Lake Kemp improvement’’ means an im-
provement (including dwellings) located within the flowage 
easement of Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159 feet 
mean sea level.
SEC. 3085. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS. 
The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, 
Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified—
(1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
planning, design, and construction work carried out 
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the part-
119
nership agreement for the project if the Secretary de-
termines that the work is integral to the project; and 
(2) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project, to make 
a determination under section 103(m) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s ability to pay.
SEC. 3086. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, 
TEXAS. 
The project for ecosystem restoration and storm dam-
age reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, 
Texas, authorized by section 556 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is modified to in-
clude recreation as a project purpose. 
SEC. 3087. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS. 
The Secretary is authorized to convert flowage ease-
ments to fee simple title in the subdivisions of Buffalo 
Springs and Frees Lakeview, and adjacent areas, located 
within the boundaries necessary for the operation of the 
Proctor Lake project, Texas, authorized by section 203 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and to pur-
chase all improved and unimproved properties within such 
boundaries and to pay relocation assistance benefits to 
qualified landowners as applicable under the provisions of
120
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac-
quisition Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
SEC. 3088. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. 
The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, 
Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive plan 
for flood protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio 
Rivers in Texas and modified by section 103 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and sec-
tion 335 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2611), is further modified to authorize the Sec-
retary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the cost of 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. 
SEC. 3089. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA. 
Section 358 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking ‘‘September 
30, 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘May 4, 1997’’. 
SEC. 3090. ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, VIRGINIA. 
The project for flood control, Roanoke River Upper 
Basin, Virginia, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4126) and 
modified by section 110 of the Energy and Water Develop-
121
ment Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 650), is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, 
at a total cost of $64,300,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $42,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$22,200,000. In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall 
award contracts based on invitation-for-bids procedures.
SEC. 3091. BLAIR AND SITCUM WATERWAYS, TACOMA HAR-
BOR, WASHINGTON. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Blair 
and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington, au-
thorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4096) and deepened to 51 feet 
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 
U.S.C. 577), is modified to direct the Secretary to review 
the locally prepared plan for the Blair and Sitcum Water-
ways, Washington, 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, to authorize the 
Secretary to carry out the plan, at a Federal cost of 
$4,240,000. 
(b) NON-FEDERAL WORK.—The Secretary shall pro-
vide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project, or reimbursement for, the cost of work carried out 
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partner-
122
ship agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 
that the work is integral to the project. 
SEC. 3092. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. 
Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by 
striking ‘‘$47,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$89,000,000’’. 
SEC. 3093. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN. 
The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wis-
consin, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August 
30, 1852, is modified to direct the Secretary to deepen the 
upstream reach of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 
18 feet, at a total cost of $300,000.
SEC. 3094. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS. 
Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1988 (102 Stat. 4027) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) by striking ‘‘1276.42’’ and inserting 
‘‘1278.42’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘1218.31’’ and inserting 
‘‘1221.31’’; and 
(C) by striking ‘‘1234.82’’ and inserting 
‘‘1235.30’’; and 
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
following:
123
‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary may operate the 
headwaters reservoirs below the minimum or above the max-
imum water levels established in subsection (a) in accord-
ance with water control regulation manuals (or revisions 
thereto) developed by the Secretary, after consultation with 
the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments, 
landowners, and commercial and recreational users. The 
water control regulation manuals (and any revisions there-
to) shall be effective when the Secretary transmits them to 
Congress. The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 
14 days before operating any such headwaters reservoir 
below the minimum or above the maximum water level lim-
its specified in subsection (a); except that notification is 
not required for operations necessary to prevent the loss of 
life or to ensure the safety of the dam or where the draw-
down of lake levels is in anticipation of flood control oper-
ations.’’. 
SEC. 3095. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
579a(b)(2)), the following projects shall remain authorized 
to be carried out by the Secretary: 
(1) The project for navigation, Fall River Har-
bor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
124
(2) The project for flood control, Agana River, 
Guam, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127). 
(b) LIMITATION.—A project described in subsection (a) 
shall not be authorized for construction after the last day 
of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
this Act, unless, during such period, funds have been obli-
gated for the construction (including planning and design) 
of the project. 
SEC. 3096. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS. 
Each of the following projects may be carried out by 
the Secretary and no construction on any such project may 
be initiated until the Secretary determines that the project 
is feasible: 
(1) MENOMINEE HARBOR AND RIVER, MICHIGAN 
AND WISCONSIN.—The project for navigation, Menom-
inee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin, au-
thorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized on April 15, 
2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
579a(b)(2)). 
(2) MANITOWOC
HARBOR, 
WISCONSIN.—That 
portion of the project for navigation, Manitowoc Har-
bor, Wisconsin, consisting of the channel in the south
125
part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by section 101 
of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176). 
SEC. 3097. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects are not au-
thorized after the date of enactment of this Act: 
(1) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The 
portion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport Har-
bor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor 
Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 
18-foot channel in Yellow Mill River and described as 
follows: Beginning at a point along the eastern limit 
of the existing project, N123,649.75, E481,920.54, 
thence running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to a 
point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running 
northeasterly 
about 
1,442.21 
feet 
to 
a 
point 
N125,030.08, E482,394.96, thence running northeast-
erly about 139.52 feet to a point along the east limit 
of the existing channel, N125,133.87, E482,488.19, 
thence running southwesterly about 1,588.98 feet to 
the point of origin. 
(2) NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The fol-
lowing portions a 10-foot channel of the project for 
navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, authorized 
by the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Appro-
priations Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1276):
126
(A) An approximate rectangular shaped sec-
tion along the northwesterly terminus of the 
channel. The section is 35-feet wide and about 
460-feet long and is further described as follows: 
Commencing 
at 
a 
point 
N104,165.85, 
E417,662.71, thence running south 24 degrees 06 
minutes 55 seconds east 395.00 feet to a point 
N103,805.32, E417,824.10, thence running south 
00 degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds east 87.84 feet 
to a point N103,717.49, E417,825.07, thence 
running north 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds 
west 480.00 feet, to a point N104,155.59, 
E417.628.96, thence running north 73 degrees 05 
minutes 25 seconds east 35.28 feet to the point 
of origin. 
(B) An area having the approximate shape 
of a parallelogram along the northeasterly por-
tion of the channel, southeast of the area de-
scribed in subparagraph (A). This area is 20-feet 
wide and about 260-feet long and is further de-
scribed as follows: Commencing at a point 
N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence running south 
33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds east 133.40 feet 
to a point N103,743.76, E417,922.89, thence 
running south 24 degrees 07 minutes 04 seconds
127
east 127.75 feet to a point N103,627.16, 
E417,975.09, thence running north 33 degrees 07 
minutes 30 seconds west 190.00 feet to a point 
N103,786.28, E417,871.26, thence running north 
17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds west 72.39 feet 
to the point of origin. 
(3) CHICAGO RIVER AND HARBOR, CHICAGO, IL-
LINOIS.—Those portions of the projects for navigation, 
Chicago River and Chicago Harbor, Chicago, Illinois, 
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 
1899 (30 Stat. 1129), extending 50 feet riverward of 
the existing dock wall on the south side of the channel 
from Lake Street to Franklin Street and 25 feet 
riverward of the existing dock wall on the south side 
of the channel from Franklin Street to Wabash Ave-
nue, and those areas within 20 feet of the bridge abut-
ments on the south side of the channel for the length 
of the protection bridge piers from the Franklin Street 
Bridge to the Michigan Avenue Bridge. 
(4) ISLAND END RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The 
portion of the project for navigation, Island End 
River, Massachusetts, carried out under section 107 of 
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), 
described as follows: Beginning at a point along the 
eastern limit of the existing project, N507,348.98,
128
E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 feet 
to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running 
northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, 
E721,433.17, thence running northeast about 345 feet 
to a point along the northern limit of the existing 
project, N507,927.29, E721,510.29, thence running 
southeast about 25 feet to a point N507,921.71, 
E721,534.66, thence running southwest about 354 feet 
to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence running 
southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin. 
(5) CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.—
The portion of the project for navigation, City Water-
way, Tacoma, Washington, authorized by the first sec-
tion of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 
June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), consisting of the last 
1,000 linear feet of the inner portion of the waterway 
beginning at Station 70+00 and ending at Station 
80+00. 
(b) ANCHORAGE AREA, NEW LONDON HARBOR, CON-
NECTICUT.—The portion of the project for navigation, New 
London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and 
Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 
333), that consists of a 23-foot waterfront channel and that 
is further described as beginning at a point along the west-
ern limit of the existing project, N188, 802.75, E779,
129
462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to 
a point N189, 554.87, E780, 612.53, thence running south-
easterly about 439.54 feet to a point N189, 319.88, E780, 
983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to 
a point N188, 864.63, E780, 288.08, thence running south-
easterly about 567.39 feet to a point N188, 301.88, E780, 
360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to 
the point of origin, shall be redesignated as an anchorage 
area. 
(c) NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The 10-foot 
channel portion of the Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, navi-
gation project described in subsection (a)(2) is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to realign the channel to include 
a new section immediately north of the area described in 
subsection (a)(2)(B). The new triangular shaped section is 
described as follows: Commencing at a point N103,968.35, 
E417,815.29, thence running south 17 degrees 05 minutes 
15 seconds east 118.09 feet to a point N103,855.48, 
E417,849.99, thence running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 
30 seconds west 36.76 feet to a point N103,886.27, 
E417.829.90, thence running north 10 degrees 05 minutes 
26 seconds west 83.37 feet to the point of origin. 
(d) CHICAGO RIVER AND HARBOR, CHICAGO, ILLI-
NOIS.—The projects for navigation, Chicago River and Chi-
cago Harbor referred to in subsection (a)(3) are modified
130
to direct the Secretary to redefine the Federal navigation 
channel for the North Branch Canal portion extending from 
100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 
feet upstream of the Division Street Bridge to be no wider 
than 66 feet. 
(e) ADDITIONAL DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The following 
projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of 
this Act, except with respect to any portion of such a project 
which portion has been completed before such date or is 
under construction on such date: 
(1) The project for flood damage reduction, 
Cache Creek Basin, Clear Lake Outlet Channel, Cali-
fornia, authorized by the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662). 
(2) The project for flood control, Goleta and Vi-
cinity, California, authorized by the Flood Control 
Act of 1970. 
(3) The project to modify the Central and South-
ern Florida project to improve water supply to the 
Everglades National Park, Florida, authorized by the 
Flood Control Act of 1954 (Public Law 83–780) and 
the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90–483). 
(4) The project for flood control, Central and 
Southern Florida Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Flor-
ida, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962.
131
(5) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, 
Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 
of the Flood Control Act of 1946. 
(6) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake 
George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 
Law 99–662). 
(7) The project for flood damage reduction, 
Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, 
authorized by the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986, deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reau-
thorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (Public Law 102–580). 
(8) The project for flood damage reduction, Haz-
ard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–
676) and section 108 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–640). 
(9) The recreation portion of the project for flood 
control, Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, authorized by 
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966. 
(10) The project for flood control, West Kentucky 
Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by the Flood Con-
trol Acts of 1965 and 1970 and the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986.
132
(11) The project for flood damage reduction, 
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana, author-
ized by the Flood Control Act of 1941 and the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1974. 
(12) The project for flood control, Eastern 
Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Lou-
isiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1970 
(Public Law–611). 
(13) The project for Red River Waterway, 
Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, author-
ized by the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (Public 
Law 90–483). 
(14) The project for flood damage reduction 
Brockton, Massachusetts, authorized by section 401(c) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(Public Law 99–662). 
(15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven 
Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 202 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 
Law 99–662). 
(16) The project for navigation, Greenville Har-
bor, Mississippi, authorized by section 601 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 
Law 99–662).
133
(17) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam, 
Montana, (Units 6–8), authorized by section 549 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104–303). 
(18) The project for flood damage reduction, 
Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion 
Control, Nebraska, authorized by section 603 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 
Law 99–662). 
(19) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, 
Buffalo, New York, authorized by section 110 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992. 
(20) The project for flood damage reduction, 
Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Caro-
lina, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662). 
(21) The project for flood control and recreation, 
Fairfield, Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 
Law 99–662). 
(22) The project for shoreline protection, Maumee 
Bay, Lake Erie, Ohio, authorized by section 501(a) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 
(23) The project for flood control and water sup-
ply, Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma,
134
authorized by the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (Public Law 99–662). 
(24) The project for the Columbia River, Sea-
farers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act of 1991. 
(25) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset 
Point-Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 
571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 
(26) The project for flood damage reduction, 
Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, author-
ized by section 102 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Acts of 1976 and 1986. 
(27) The project for flood damage reduction, Ar-
royo Colorado, Texas, authorized by the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–
662). 
(28) The project for flood damage reduction, Cy-
press Creek-Structural, Texas, authorized by the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1988. 
(29) The project for flood damage reduction, 
East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East 
Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by the 
Flood Control Act of 1962.
135
(30) The project for flood damage reduction, 
Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1988. 
(31) The project for bank erosion, Kanawha 
River, Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by sec-
tion 603(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662).
(f) CONDITIONS.—The first sentence of section 
1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘two years’’ and inserting 
‘‘year’’; and 
(2) by striking ‘‘7’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’.
SEC. 3098. LAND CONVEYANCES. 
(a) MILFORD, KANSAS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of 
this section, the Secretary shall convey by quitclaim 
deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire 
Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and in-
terest of the United States in and to a parcel of land 
consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located in 
Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, 
and maintenance of a fire station. 
(2) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—
The exact acreage and the description of the real
136
property referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deter-
mined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Sec-
retary. 
(3) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines 
that the property conveyed under paragraph (1) 
ceases to be held in public ownership or to be used for 
any purpose other than a fire station, all right, title, 
and interest in and to the property shall revert to the 
United States, at the option of the United States. 
(b) BOARDMAN, OREGON.—Section 501(g)(1) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) 
is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘city of Boardman,’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘the Boardman Park and Recreation District, 
Boardman,’’; and 
(2) by striking ‘‘such city’’ and inserting ‘‘the 
city of Boardman’’. 
(c) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—
(1) APPLICABILITY
OF
PROPERTY
SCREENING 
PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States 
Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this 
section. 
(2) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The 
Secretary may require that any conveyance under 
this section be subject to such additional terms and
137
conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate and 
necessary to protect the interests of the United States. 
(3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—An entity to which 
a conveyance is made under this section shall be re-
sponsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, in-
cluding real estate transaction and environmental 
compliance costs, associated with the conveyance. 
(4) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance 
is made under this section shall hold the United 
States harmless from any liability with respect to ac-
tivities carried out, on or after the date of the convey-
ance, on the real property conveyed. The United 
States shall remain responsible for any liability with 
respect to activities carried out, before such date, on 
the real property conveyed. 
SEC. 3099. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTER-
ESTS AND USE RESTRICTIONS.
(a) IDAHO.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each deed list-
ed in paragraph (2), the reversionary interests and 
use restrictions relating to industrial use purposes are 
extinguished. 
(2) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds with the fol-
lowing county auditor’s file numbers are referred to 
in paragraph (1):
138
(A) Auditor’s Instrument No. 399218 of Nez 
Perce County, Idaho—2.07 acres. 
(B) Auditor’s Instrument No. 487437 of Nez 
Perce County, Idaho—7.32 acres.
(b) OLD HICKORY LOCK
AND DAM, CUMBERLAND 
RIVER, TENNESSEE.—
(1) RELEASE OF RETAINED RIGHTS, INTERESTS, 
RESERVATIONS.—With respect to land conveyed by 
the Secretary to the Tennessee Society of Crippled 
Children and Adults, Incorporated (now known as 
‘‘Easter Seals Tennessee’’), at Old Hickory Lock and 
Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under section 
211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), 
the reversionary interests and the use restrictions re-
lating to recreation and camping purposes are extin-
guished. 
(2) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—As soon as pos-
sible after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary shall execute and file in the appropriate office 
a deed of release, amended deed, or other appropriate 
instrument effectuating the release of interests re-
quired by paragraph (1). 
(c) NO EFFECT OF OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in this 
section affects the remaining rights and interests of the 
Corps of Engineers for authorized project purposes.
139
SEC. 3100. LAND EXCHANGE, DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION 
OF LANDS, ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA. 
(a) LAND EXCHANGE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may exchange 
lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, 
Georgia, identified in the Real Estate Design Memo-
randum prepared by the Mobile district engineer, 
April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996, for 
lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are 
needed for wildlife management and for protection of 
the water quality and overall environment of 
Allatoona Lake. 
(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The basis for all 
land exchanges under this subsection shall be a fair 
market appraisal so that lands exchanged are of equal 
value. 
(b) 
DISPOSAL
AND
ACQUISITION
OF
LANDS, 
ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may also sell 
lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, 
Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to in 
subsection (a)(1) and may use the proceeds to pay 
costs associated with the purchase of lands needed for 
wildlife management and for protection of the water 
quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
140
(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Land sales and 
purchases to be conducted under this subsection shall 
be subject to the following terms and conditions: 
(A) Lands acquired under this subsection 
shall be by negotiated purchase from willing sell-
ers only. 
(B) The basis for all transactions under the 
program shall be a fair market appraisal accept-
able to the Secretary. 
(C) The purchasers shall share in the associ-
ated environmental and real estate costs, to in-
clude surveys and associated fees in accordance 
with the memorandum referred to in subsection 
(a)(1). 
(D) Any other conditions that the Secretary 
may impose. 
(c) REPEAL.—Section 325 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed. 
TITLE IV—STUDIES 
SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM. 
Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 330–332) is amended by adding at the 
end the following: 
‘‘(g) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR STUDY.—The non-
Federal interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-
141
Federal share required under subsection (f) in the form of 
services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contribu-
tions.’’. 
SEC. 4002. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA. 
The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a 
study to determine the feasibility of providing navigation 
improvements at St. George, Alaska. 
SEC. 4003. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower, recre-
ation, and related purposes on the Susitna River, Alaska. 
SEC. 4004. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply 
source for Searcy County, Arkansas. 
SEC. 4005. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-
WAY, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, 
AND WISCONSIN. 
The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on 
the results of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Wa-
terway Restructured System Navigation Feasibility Study, 
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, no 
later than July 1, 2004.
142
SEC. 4006. HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA. 
The Secretary is directed to continue planning, 
preconstruction, engineering, and design efforts on the Sac-
ramento-San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study-
Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem 
Restoration Initial Project and shall include in the study 
an area 2 miles north and 4 miles south of State Highway 
32.
SEC. 4007. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA. 
Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636) is amended by striking ‘‘32 
months’’ and inserting ‘‘44 months’’. 
SEC. 4008. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to 
determine the feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures 
to protect water diversion facilities and fish protective 
screen facilities in the vicinity of river mile 178 on the Sac-
ramento River, California.
SEC. 4009. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOA-
QUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 
study to determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of 
dredged material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sac-
ramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, including the bene-
fits and impacts of salinity in the Delta and the benefits 
to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restora-
143
tion, water quality, salinity control, water supply reli-
ability, and recreation. 
(b) COOPERATION.—In conducting the study, the Sec-
retary shall cooperate with the California Department of 
Water Resources and appropriate Federal and State enti-
ties in developing options for the beneficial use of dredged 
material from San Francisco Bay for the Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta area. 
(c) REVIEW.—The study shall include a review of the 
feasibility of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site 
for levee maintenance material, as well as for ecosystem res-
toration. The review may include monitoring a pilot project 
using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged material and 
being carried out at the Sherman Island site, examining 
larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Fran-
cisco Bay and Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the fea-
sibility of the potential use of saline materials from the San 
Francisco Bay for both rehandling and ecosystem restora-
tion purposes.
SEC. 4010. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of including the northern end of Tybee Island 
extending from the north terminal groin to the mouth of 
Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project for beach erosion 
control, Tybee Island, Georgia, carried out under section
146
SEC. 4020. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND 
NEW JERSEY. 
In carrying out the study for environmental restora-
tion, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey, 
the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restora-
tion teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the 
Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, and the Port Authority of New York and 
New Jersey and other experts designated by the Secretary 
for the purpose of developing habitat restoration and water 
quality enhancement. 
SEC. 4021. SAC AND FOX NATION, OKLAHOMA. 
The Secretary shall complete a water and related land 
resource conservation and management plan for the Sac 
and Fox Nation, Oklahoma, under section 203 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269). 
SEC. 4022. SUTHERLIN, OREGON. 
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of 
water resources along Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of 
Sutherlin, Oregon, to determine the feasibility of carrying 
out a project to restore and enhance aquatic resources using 
a combination of structural and bioengineering techniques 
and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, 
may carry out the project.
147
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$2,500,000. 
SEC. 4023. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON. 
The Secretary shall conduct under section 216 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) a study of the 
project for navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon, au-
thorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appro-
priations Act of July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 220), to investigate 
measures to address dangerous and hazardous wave and 
ocean conditions. 
SEC. 4024. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE 
IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON. 
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restora-
tion and fish passage improvements on rivers throughout 
the State of Oregon. 
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the study, the 
Secretary shall—
(1) work in coordination with the State of Or-
egon, local governments, and other Federal agencies; 
and 
(2) place emphasis on—
(A) fish passage and conservation and res-
toration strategies to benefit species that are list-
148
ed or proposed for listing as threatened or en-
dangered species under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and 
(B) other watershed restoration objectives. 
(c) PILOT PROGRAM.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—In conjunction with con-
ducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary 
may carry out pilot projects to demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of ecosystem restoration and fish passages. 
(2) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to 
carry out this subsection. 
SEC. 4025. NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AQUATIC ECO-
SYSTEM RESTORATION AND PROTECTION. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration 
and protection projects in the counties of Lackawanna, 
Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, 
Bradford, Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour, 
Pennsylvania, particularly as related to abandoned mine 
drainage abatement and reestablishment of stream and 
river channels.
149
SEC. 4026. GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSBURG COUNTIES, 
SOUTH CAROLINA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina, 
including the viability and practicality of constructing a 
desalinization water treatment facility to meet such water 
supply needs. 
SEC. 4027. SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS. 
In conducting a feasibility study for shore protection 
and related improvements between Sabine Pass and the en-
trance to Galveston Bay, Texas, the Secretary may include 
any benefits related to the use of State Highway 87 as an 
emergency evacuation route in the determination of na-
tional economic development benefits of the project.
SEC. 4028. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
Grand County and the city of Moab, Utah, including a re-
view of the impact of current and future demands on the 
Spanish Valley Aquifer. 
SEC. 4029. CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON. 
The Secretary shall conduct a river basin study for 
the Chehalis River basin, Washington, including a study 
of the uses of the basin’s water resources to assist users in
150
developing a fair and equitable distribution of such re-
sources. 
SEC. 4030. SPRAGUE, LINCOLN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 
The Secretary may accept from the non-Federal inter-
est to pay all or a part of the non-Federal share of the cost 
of feasibility study for the project for flood control in the 
vicinity of Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington, funds 
made available under any other Federal program if such 
use of the funds is permitted under the Federal program.
SEC. 4031. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST 
VIRGINIA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration 
and protection projects in the watersheds of the 
Monongahela River basin lying within the counties of Han-
cock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, 
Doddridge, 
Monongalia, 
Marion, 
Harrison, 
Taylor, 
Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, 
and Rithchie, West Virginia, particularly as related to 
abandoned mine drainage abatement.
SEC. 4032. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduc-
tion and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and 
Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.
151
TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS 
PROVISIONS 
SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon request of a non-Federal in-
terest, the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance 
of the following navigation channels and breakwaters con-
structed or improved by the non-Federal interest if the Sec-
retary determines that such maintenance is economically 
justified and environmentally acceptable and that the chan-
nel or breakwater was constructed in accordance with ap-
plicable permits and appropriate engineering and design 
standards: 
(1) Pix Bayou navigation channel, Chambers 
County, Texas. 
(2) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Indus-
trial Park, Memphis Harbor, Tennessee. 
(3) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin. 
(b) COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 6 
months after the date of receipt of a request from a non-
Federal interest for Federal assumption of maintenance of 
a channel listed in subsection (a), the Secretary shall make 
a determination as provided in subsection (a) and advise 
the non-Federal interest of the Secretary’s determination.
(c) SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TEXAS.—The Sec-
retary shall remove sunken vessels and debris between miles
152
35 and 43 of the Channel to Orange, Sabine-Neches Water-
way, Texas, for the purpose of improving navigation safety 
and reducing the risk to the public. 
SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide tech-
nical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal inter-
ests for carrying out watershed management, restoration, 
and development projects at the locations described in sub-
section (d). 
(b) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Assistance provided under 
subsection (a) may be in support of non-Federal projects 
for the following purposes: 
(1) Management and restoration of water qual-
ity. 
(2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments. 
(3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wet-
lands, and other waterbodies to their natural condi-
tion as a means to control flooding, excessive erosion, 
and sedimentation. 
(4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, in-
cluding urban watersheds. 
(5) Demonstration of technologies for non-
structural measures to reduce destructive impacts of 
flooding.
153
(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of 
the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall 
be 50 percent. 
(d) PROJECT LOCATIONS.—The locations referred to in 
subsection (a) are the following: 
(1) Spring Branch watershed, Huntsville, Ala-
bama. 
(2) Tuolumne County, California. 
(3) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California. 
(4) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois. 
(5) Those portions of the watersheds of the Con-
cord, Charles, Blackstone, Neponset, Taunton, Nash-
ua, Shawsheen, and Merrimack Rivers, Massachusetts, 
lying within the Interstate Route 495 corridor. 
(6) Jackson Brook watershed, New Jersey. 
(7) Those portions of the watersheds of the Bea-
ver, Upper Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, 
Kiskiminetas, Lower Monongahela, Youghiogheny, 
Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers lying within the 
counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, 
Pennsylvania. 
(8) Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, 
Pennsylvania. 
(9) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, 
Pennsylvania.
154
(10) Amite River basin, Louisiana. 
(11) Iberville Parish, East Atchafalaya River 
basin, Louisiana. 
(12) Genesee River watershed, New York. 
(13) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York. 
(14) Buffalo River watershed, New York. 
(15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara 
County, New York. 
(16) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York. 
(17) Oswego River basin, New York. 
(18) Red River watershed, Louisiana. 
(19) Fountain Creek and tributaries, Colorado. 
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$15,000,000. 
SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY. 
(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide assist-
ance to enhance dam safety at the following locations: 
(1) Mountain Park Dam, Mountain Park, Geor-
gia. 
(2) Barber Dam, Ada County, Idaho. 
(3) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho. 
(4) Lost Valley Dam, Adams County, Idaho. 
(5) Salmon Falls Dam, Twin Falls County, 
Idaho.
155
(6) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York. 
(7) Lake Carl Blackwell Dam, Stillwater, Okla-
homa. 
(8) Dams in Mountain Lakes Park, Princeton 
Township, New Jersey. 
(9) State Dam, Auburn, New York. 
(10) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
(b) SPECIAL RULE.—The assistance provided under 
subsection (a) for State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be 
for a project for rehabilitation in accordance with the report 
on State Dam Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New 
York, dated March 1999, if the Secretary determines that 
the project is feasible. 
(c) FERN RIDGE DAM, OREGON.—It is the sense of 
Congress that the Secretary should work to immediately 
remedy the situation at Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, due to 
the rapid deterioration of the dam. 
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$6,000,000. 
SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon request of a non-Federal in-
terest, the Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity 
and effectiveness of a project for flood damage reduction 
and, if the Secretary determines that the project does not
156
meet such minimum standards as the Secretary may estab-
lish and, absent action by the Secretary, the project will 
fail, the Secretary may take such action as may be nec-
essary to restore the integrity and effectiveness of the 
project. 
(b) PRIORITY.—The Secretary shall evaluate under 
subsection (a) the following projects: 
(1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas 
River Levees, river mile 205 to river mile 308.4, Ar-
kansas. 
(2) 
Project 
for 
flood 
damage 
reduction, 
Marianna Borough, Pennsylvania. 
(3) 
Project 
for 
flood 
damage 
reduction, 
Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee.
SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS. 
Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 
(27); 
(2) by striking the period at the end of para-
graph (28) and inserting a semicolon; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(29) La Crosse County, Wisconsin; 
‘‘(30) Crawford County, Wisconsin; 
‘‘(31) Buffalo County, Wisconsin;
157
‘‘(32) Calhoun County, Illinois; 
‘‘(33) Saint Charles County, Missouri; 
‘‘(34) Saint Louis County, Missouri; 
‘‘(35) Dubuque County, Iowa; 
‘‘(36) Scott County, Iowa; 
‘‘(37) Rock Island County, Illinois; 
‘‘(38) Ascension Parish, Louisiana; 
‘‘(39) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; 
‘‘(40) Iberville Parish, Louisiana; and 
‘‘(41) Livingston Parish, Louisiana.’’. 
SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED 
PROJECTS. 
Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) 
is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 
(7); 
(2) by striking the period at the end of para-
graph (8) and inserting a semicolon; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(9) $20,000,000 for the project described in sub-
section (c)(20); 
‘‘(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in 
subsection (c)(25);
158
‘‘(11) $15,000,000 for the project described in 
subsection (c)(26); 
‘‘(12) $7,800,000 for the project described in sub-
section (c)(27); 
‘‘(13) $18,000,000 for the project described in 
subsection (c)(31); and 
‘‘(14) $30,000,000 for the project described in 
subsection (c)(40).’’. 
SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CON-
STRUCTION FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. 
The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports 
and, if the Secretary determines the project is feasible, shall 
expedite completion of construction for the following 
projects: 
(1) Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, Mary-
land, being carried out under section 535(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
348–349). 
(2) West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland, 
being carried out under section 521 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2000 (114. Stat. 2655). 
(3) Sylvan Beach Breakwater, Verona, Oneida 
County, New York, being carried out under section 3 
of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal par-
ticipation in the cost of protecting the shores of pub-
159
licly owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 
U.S.C. 426g).
(4) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, 
being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 
(5) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, 
being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 
(6) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, 
being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 
(7) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, 
New York, being carried out under section 206 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 
2330). 
(8) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney 
Point, New York, being carried out under section 
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(33 U.S.C. 2309a). 
(9) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, being 
carried out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r). 
(10) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New 
York, being carried out under section 206 of the
160
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 
2330). 
(11) Lucas Berg Pit, Worth, Illinois, being car-
ried out as part of the Calumet-Sag navigation 
project, authorized by section 2 of the River and Har-
bor Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), and modified 
by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of 
July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636), and section 109 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 302). 
SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CER-
TAIN PROJECTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite com-
pletion of the reports for the following projects and, if the 
Secretary determines that a project is justified in the com-
pleted report, proceed directly to project preconstruction, 
engineering, and design: 
(1) Project for flood damage reduction and eco-
system restoration, Sacramento and San Joaquin 
River basins, Hamilton, California. 
(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, University 
Lake, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
(3) Project for shoreline protection, Detroit River 
Greenway Corridor, Detroit, Michigan. 
(4) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont 
Key, Florida.
161
(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In carrying out the project for 
shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to 
in subsection (a)(4), the Secretary shall waive any cost 
share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any por-
tion of the project that benefits federally owned property. 
(c) CHESAPEAKE, MARYLAND.—The Secretary shall 
expedite completion of the study being carried out under 
section 535(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 (113 Stat. 349) with respect to additional compensa-
tion to the city of Chesapeake, Maryland. 
SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESS-
MENT. 
The Secretary may provide assistance to a coordinated 
effort by Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal and 
nonprofit entities, regional researchers, and other interested 
parties to assess the water resources and water resources 
needs of river basins and watersheds of the southeastern 
United States. 
SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL 
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 
Section 1103(e)(7)(A) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(7)(A)) is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ‘‘The non-Federal interest 
may provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the project
162
in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
contributions.’’.
SEC. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS EN-
HANCEMENT PROJECT. 
Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by strik-
ing ‘‘and 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2015’’. 
SEC. 5012. MEMBERSHIP OF MISSOURI RIVER TRUST. 
Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vii); 
(2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); 
and 
(3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following: 
‘‘(viii) rural water systems; and’’. 
SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RES-
TORATION. 
Section 506(f)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–22; 114 Stat. 2646) 
is amended by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘100 
percent’’. 
SEC. 5014. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC 
RIVER BASINS. 
(a) EX OFFICIO MEMBER.—Notwithstanding section 
3001(a) of the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropria-
163
tions Act for Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for 
Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia 
(111 Stat. 176) and section 2.2 of both the Susquehanna 
River Basin Compact (Public Law 91–575) and the Dela-
ware River Basin Compact (Public Law 87–328), begin-
ning in fiscal year 2002 and thereafter, the Division Engi-
neer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers, shall be 
the ex officio United States member under the Susquehanna 
River Basin Compact and the Delaware River Basin Com-
pact, who shall serve without additional compensation and 
who may designate an alternate member or members in ac-
cordance with the terms of those respective compacts. 
(b) AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOCATE.—The Secretary 
may allocate funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Com-
mission, Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Inter-
state Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Potomac 
River Basin Compact (Public Law 91–407)) to fulfill the 
equitable funding requirements of their respective interstate 
compacts. 
(c) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STORAGE.—
The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Dela-
ware River Basin Commission to provide temporary water 
supply and conservation storage at the Francis E. Walter 
Dam, Pennsylvania, during any period in which the Com-
mission has determined that a drought warning or drought
164
emergency exists. The agreement shall provide that the cost 
for any such water supply and conservation storage shall 
not exceed the incremental operating costs associated with 
providing the storage. 
SEC. 5015. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORA-
TION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM. 
Section 510(i) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking 
‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’. 
SEC. 5016. MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA. 
The Secretary shall review the navigation and aquatic 
ecosystem restoration components of the Montgomery River-
front and Downtown Master Plan, Montgomery, Alabama, 
dated May 2001, and prepared by the non-Federal interest 
and, if the Secretary determines that those components meet 
the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engi-
neers and that the components are feasible, may carry out 
the components at a Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000.
SEC. 5017. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA. 
The Secretary shall design and construct the locally 
preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek, Hunts-
ville, Alabama, under the authority of section 205 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). The Secretary 
shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c)
165
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates 
that applying such section is necessary to implement the 
project.
SEC. 5018. ALASKA. 
Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 369) is amended—
(1) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last 
sentence; 
(2) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ 
and inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 
221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–
5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, a non-
Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the 
consent of the affected local government. 
‘‘(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent 
of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may 
be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to admin-
ister projects under this section at 100 percent Federal ex-
pense.’’.
SEC. 5019. AKUTAN SMALL BOAT HARBOR, ALASKA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite the 
study for the Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska, and upon
166
completion of the feasibility study, shall design and con-
struct the project, if the Secretary determines that the 
project is feasible. 
(b) 
TREATMENT
OF
CERTAIN
DREDGING.—The 
headlands dredging for the mooring basin shall be consid-
ered general navigation feature for purposes of estimating 
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. 
SEC. 5020. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA. 
(a) LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIR.—The 
Secretary shall assume responsibility for the long-term 
maintenance and repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel. 
(b) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine whether alternative methods of flood diversion in 
Lowell Canyon are feasible. 
SEC. 5021. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, 
ALASKA. 
The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, 
necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock that are 
impeding the entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul 
Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.
SEC. 5022. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to per-
form operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of author-
ized and completed levees on the White River between Au-
gusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
167
(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—After performing the oper-
ation, maintenance, and rehabilitation under subsection 
(a), the Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Sec-
retary of the Interior of an amount equal to the costs allo-
cated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such oper-
ation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. 
SEC. 5023. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage 
in the vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, to determine 
if the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, 
and, if the Secretary determines that the damage is the re-
sult of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall 
carry out a project to mitigate the damage under section 
111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i). 
SEC. 5024. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGA-
TION PROJECT, ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA. 
The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation and 
comprehensive development project, Arkansas and Okla-
homa, authorized by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing 
the construction of certain public works on rivers and har-
bors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved 
June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), and the first section of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 364) and modified 
by section 108 of the Energy and Water Development Ap-
propriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329–112), is further
168
modified to authorize a project depth of 12 feet in the States 
of Arkansas and Oklahoma. 
SEC. 5025. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MIS-
SOURI. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased silta-
tion and streambank erosion in the St. Francis River basin, 
Arkansas and Missouri, to determine if the siltation or ero-
sion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood control project 
and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation or ero-
sion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood control 
project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate 
the siltation or erosion, or both.
SEC. 5026. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA. 
Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘$10,300,000’’ and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$10,300,000’’; 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of 
planning and design work carried out by the 
non-Federal interest before the date of the part-
nership agreement for the project if the Secretary
169
determines that the work is integral to the 
project.’’; and 
(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of sub-
paragraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of 
this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by 
paragraph (2) of this section). 
SEC. 
5027. 
CONTRA 
COSTA 
CANAL, 
OAKLEY 
AND 
KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA; MALLARD SLOUGH, 
PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA. 
Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by 
adding at the end the following: ‘‘All planning, study, de-
sign, and construction on the project shall be carried out 
by the office of the district engineer, San Francisco, Cali-
fornia.’’. 
SEC. 5028. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 
Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835–4836; 113 Stat. 336) is amend-
ed—
(1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$25,000,000’’; 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
170
project (i) the cost of design and construction 
work carried out by the non-Federal interest be-
fore the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work 
is integral to the project; and (ii) the cost of in-
kind services and materials provided for the 
project by the non-Federal interest. 
‘‘(C) IN-KIND
CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-
Federal interest may provide any portion of the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the 
form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-
kind contributions.’’; and 
(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of sub-
paragraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of 
this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by 
paragraph (2) of this section).
SEC. 5029. SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA. 
Section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835–4836; 113 Stat. 336) is amend-
ed—
(1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$35,000,000’’; 
(2) by inserting ‘‘water supply and’’ before ‘‘re-
gional’’; and
171
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘$llllllll for wastewater and water sup-
ply infrastructure in the counties of Modoc, Lassen, 
Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Nevada, El Dorado, and Plac-
er, California.’’. 
SEC. 5030. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, 
CALIFORNIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to 
transfer title to the Bascule Bridge, deauthorized by section 
347(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114. Stat. 2618), to the city of West Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, subject to the execution of an agreement by the Sec-
retary and the city which specifies the terms and conditions 
for such transfer. The terms and conditions of the transfer 
shall include a provision authorizing the Secretary to par-
ticipate in the construction of a replacement bridge fol-
lowing the removal of the Bascule Bridge. 
(b) AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATION.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the Secretary 
to participate in the construction of a replacement bridge 
under this section. 
SEC. 5031. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) PIER 70 WHARF 5 REMOVAL
AND DREDGING 
PROJECT.—
172
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation 
with the Port of San Francisco, shall carry out the 
project for removal of Wharf 5 and associated pilings 
and dredgings at Pier 70 in San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, substantially in accordance with the Port’s re-
development plans. 
(2) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $1,600,000 to 
carry out this subsection. 
(b) PIERS 94–96 REPAIRS PROJECT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation 
with the Port of San Francisco, California, may 
carry out the project for repairs to Piers 94–96 in 
San Francisco, California, substantially in accord-
ance with the Port’s redevelopment plan. 
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There 
is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry 
out this subsection.
(c) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.—
(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.—The Secretary 
shall establish a centralized office at the office of the 
district engineer, San Francisco, California, for the 
use of all Federal and State agencies that are or will 
be involved in issuing permits and conducting envi-
ronmental reviews for the capital improvement
173
project to repair and upgrade the water supply and 
delivery system for the city of San Francisco. 
(2) CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may use 
the authority under section 214 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 
note) for the project described in paragraph (1). 
(3) 
PROTECTION
OF
IMPARTIAL
DECISION-
MAKING.—In carrying out this subsection, the Sec-
retary and the heads of Federal agencies receiving 
funds under such section 214 for the project described 
in paragraph (1) shall ensure that the use of the 
funds accepted under such section for such project will 
not impact impartial decisionmaking with respect to 
the issuance of permits, either substantively or proce-
durally, or diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the 
statutory or regulatory authorities of such agencies. 
SEC. 5032. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT 
AREA. 
(a) AREA TO BE DECLARED NONNAVIGABLE; PUBLIC 
INTEREST.—Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation 
with local and regional public officials (including local and 
regional public planning organizations), that the proposed 
projects to be undertaken within the boundaries of the por-
tion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area de-
scribed in subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such
174
portion is declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United 
States. 
(b) NORTHERN EMBARCADERO SOUTH
OF BRYANT 
STREET.—The portion of the San Francisco, California, 
waterfront area referred to in subsection (a) is as follows: 
Beginning at the intersection of the northwesterly line of 
Bryant Street with the southwesterly line of Spear Street, 
which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction of the San 
Francisco Port Authority; following thence westerly and 
southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described in the 
State of California Harbor and Navigable Code Section 
1770, as amended in 1961, to its intersection with the eas-
terly line of Townsend Street produced southerly; thence 
northerly along said easterly line of Townsend Street pro-
duced to its intersection with the United States Government 
pier-head line; thence following said pier-head line westerly 
and northerly to its intersection with the existing boundary 
line of Piers 30/32, then northerly and easterly along the 
existing boundary of Piers 30/32 until its intersection with 
the United States Government pier-head line, thence fol-
lowing said pier-head line westerly and northerly to the 
northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced northwesterly; 
thence southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bry-
ant Street produced to the point of beginning.
175
(c) REQUIREMENT THAT AREA BE IMPROVED.—The 
declaration of nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies 
only to those parts of the area described in subsection (b) 
that are or will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied 
by permanent structures and does not affect the applica-
bility of any Federal statute or regulation applicable to 
such parts the day before the date of enactment of this Act, 
including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 
(33 U.S.C. 401 and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known 
as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, sec-
tion 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1344), and the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 
(d) EXPIRATION DATE.—If, 20 years from the date of 
enactment of this Act, any area or part thereof described 
in subsection (b) is not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by 
permanent structures, including marina facilities, in ac-
cordance with the requirements set out in subsection (c), 
or if work in connection with any activity permitted in 
subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after 
issuance of such permits, then the declaration of nonnaviga-
bility for such area or part thereof shall expire. 
SEC. 5033. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) REEVALUATION.—The Secretary shall reevaluate 
the feasibility of the Lower Mosher Slough element and the
176
levee extensions on the Upper Calaveras River element of 
the project for flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, 
California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to de-
termine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement 
under section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b–13). 
(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR REEVALUATION.—In con-
ducting the reevaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall not reject a feasibility determination based on policies 
of the Corps of Engineers concerning the frequency of flood-
ing, the drainage area, and the amount of runoff. 
(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—If the Secretary determines 
that the elements referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the 
Secretary shall reimburse, subject to appropriations, the 
non-Federal interest under section 211 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 for the Federal share of 
the cost of such elements. 
SEC. 5034. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, 
CONNECTICUT. 
The western breakwater for the project for navigation, 
New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the 1st sec-
tion of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for 
the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public 
works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, ap-
proved September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known
177
and designated as the ‘‘Charles Hervey Townshend Break-
water’’. 
SEC. 5035. EVERGLADES RESTORATION, FLORIDA. 
(a) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—
(1) HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER.—
Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended—
(A) in clause (i) by adding at the end the 
following: ‘‘The project for aquifer storage and 
recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Flor-
ida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 276), shall be treated for purposes of this 
section as being in the Plan.’’; and 
(B) in clause (iii) by inserting after ‘‘sub-
paragraph (B)’’ the following: ‘‘and the project 
for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and 
Okeechobee Aquifer’’. 
(2) 
OUTREACH
AND
ASSISTANCE.—Section 
601(k) of such Act (114 Stat. 2691–2692) is amended 
by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES.—The Secretary 
may expend up to $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal 
years beginning after September 30, 2002, to carry 
out this subsection.’’.
178
(b) 
CRITICAL
RESTORATION
PROJECTS.—Section 
528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (110 Stat. 3769; 113 Stat. 286) is amended—
(1) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘$75,000,000’’ and 
all that follows through ‘‘2003’’ and inserting 
‘‘$95,000,000’’; and 
(2) in clause (ii) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’.
SEC. 5036. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS. 
Section 109(e)(2) of Division B of the Miscellaneous 
Appropriations Act, 2001 (enacted into law by Public Law 
106–554) (114 Stat. 2763A–222) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
‘‘(C) CREDIT FOR WORK PRIOR TO EXECU-
TION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The 
Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of con-
struction work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest before the date of the partnership agree-
ment for the project if the Secretary determines 
that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) 
the cost of land acquisition carried out by the 
non-Federal interest for projects to be carried out 
under this section.’’.
179
SEC. 5037. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA. 
The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the 
Lake Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm 
Beach, Florida, at an estimated total cost of $9,000,000. 
SEC. 5038. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA. 
The Secretary may assist local interests with plan-
ning, design, and construction of facilities at the Lake La-
nier Olympic Center, Georgia, in support of the 2003 World 
Kayaking Championships, at a total cost of $5,300,000. 
SEC. 5039. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO. 
The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley 
Creek Recreation Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls 
Management Plan, dated October 2001, for the Riley Creek 
Recreation Area, Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho. 
SEC. 5040. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTEC-
TION PROJECTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in 
the reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the 
Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not re-
quired as a result of improper operation and maintenance 
of the project by the non-Federal interest. 
(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the 
costs for the reconstruction of a flood control project author-
ized by this section shall be the same Federal share that 
was applicable to construction of the project. The non-Fed-
eral interest shall be responsible for operation and mainte-
180
nance and repair of a project for which reconstruction is 
undertaken under this section. 
(c) RECONSTRUCTION DEFINED.—In this section, the 
term ‘‘reconstruction’’, as used with respect to a project, 
means addressing major project deficiencies caused by long-
term degradation of the foundation, construction materials, 
or engineering systems or components of the project, the re-
sults of which render the project at risk of not performing 
in compliance with its authorized project purposes. In ad-
dressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may incorporate 
current design standards and efficiency improvements, in-
cluding the replacement of obsolete mechanical and elec-
trical components at pumping stations, if such incorpora-
tion does not significantly change the scope, function, and 
purpose of the project as authorized. 
(d) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—The following flood control 
projects are eligible for reconstruction under this section: 
(1) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Il-
linois, authorized as part of the navigation project of 
the Upper Mississippi River basin by section 2 of the 
Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218). 
(2) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Il-
linois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control 
Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1581).
181
(3) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage 
District, Illinois, authorized as part of the navigation 
project of the Upper Mississippi River basin by sec-
tion 2 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1938 (52 
Stat. 1218). 
(e) JUSTIFICATION.—The reconstruction of a project 
authorized by this section shall not be considered a sepa-
rable element of the project. 
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is au-
thorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out this 
section. Such sums shall remain available until expended. 
SEC. 5041. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORA-
TION. 
(a) KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN DEFINED.—In this sec-
tion, the term ‘‘Kaskaskia River basin’’ means the 
Kaskaskia River, Illinois, its backwaters, its side channels, 
and all tributaries, including their watersheds, draining 
into the Kaskaskia River. 
(b) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—
(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary shall de-
velop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehen-
sive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and 
protecting the Kaskaskia River basin. 
(2) 
TECHNOLOGIES
AND
INNOVATIVE
AP-
PROACHES.—The comprehensive plan shall provide
182
for the development of new technologies and innova-
tive approaches—
(A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a 
transportation corridor; 
(B) to improve water quality within the en-
tire Kaskaskia River basin; 
(C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat 
for plants and wildlife; 
(D) to increase economic opportunity for 
agriculture and business communities; and 
(E) to reduce the impacts of flooding to 
communities and landowners.
(3) SPECIFIC COMPONENTS.—The comprehensive 
plan shall include such features as are necessary to 
provide for—
(A) the development and implementation of 
a program for sediment removal technology, sedi-
ment characterization, sediment transport, and 
beneficial uses of sediment; 
(B) the development and implementation of 
a program for the planning, conservation, eval-
uation, and construction of measures for fish and 
wildlife habitat conservation and rehabilitation, 
and stabilization and enhancement of land and 
water resources in the basin;
183
(C) the development and implementation of 
a long-term resource monitoring program; 
(D) the development and implementation of 
a computerized inventory and analysis system; 
and 
(E) the development and implementation of 
a systemic plan to reduce flood impacts by 
means of ecosystem restoration projects. 
(4) CONSULTATION.—The comprehensive plan 
shall be developed by the Secretary in consultation 
with appropriate Federal agencies, the State of Illi-
nois, and the Kaskaskia River Coordinating Council. 
(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 
years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary shall transmit to Congress a report containing 
the comprehensive plan. 
(6) ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES.—After 
transmission of a report under paragraph (5), the 
Secretary shall conduct studies and analyses of 
projects related to the comprehensive plan that are 
appropriate and consistent with this subsection. 
(c) GENERAL PROVISIONS.—
(1) WATER QUALITY.—In carrying out activities 
under this section, the Secretary’s recommendations
184
shall be consistent with applicable State water quality 
standards. 
(2) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developing the 
comprehensive plan under subsection (b), the Sec-
retary shall implement procedures to facilitate public 
participation, including providing advance notice of 
meetings, providing adequate opportunity for public 
input 
and 
comment, 
maintaining 
appropriate 
records, and making a record of the proceedings of 
meetings available for public inspection. 
(d) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall integrate ac-
tivities carried out under this section with ongoing Federal 
and State programs, projects, and activities, including the 
following: 
(1) Farm programs of the Department of Agri-
culture. 
(2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 
(State of Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem 
Program of the Illinois Department of Natural Re-
sources. 
(3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices 
Program and the Livestock Management Facilities 
Act administered by the Illinois Department of Agri-
culture.
185
(4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service. 
(5) Nonpoint source grant program administered 
by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 
(e) COST SHARING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the 
cost of activities carried out under this section shall 
be 35 percent. 
(2) IN-KIND
SERVICES.—The Secretary may 
credit the cost of in-kind services provided by the non-
Federal interest for an activity carried out under this 
section toward not more than 80 percent of the non-
Federal share of the cost of the activity. In-kind serv-
ices shall include all State funds expended on pro-
grams that accomplish the goals of this section, as de-
termined by the Secretary. The programs may include 
the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, 
the Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open 
Lands Trust Fund, and other appropriate programs 
carried out in the Kaskaskia River basin. 
SEC. 5042. NATALIE CREEK, MIDLOTHIAN AND OAK FOREST, 
ILLINOIS. 
The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood dam-
age reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) Natalie Creek, Midlothian and
186
Oak Forest, Illinois, if the Secretary determines that the 
project is feasible. 
SEC. 5043. PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, PEORIA, 
ILLINOIS. 
The Secretary may carry out the project for Peoria 
riverfront development, Peoria, Illinois, under section 519 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
2653–2655), at a total cost of $16,000,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $10,400,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $5,600,000. 
SEC. 5044. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION. 
(a) 
EXTENSION
OF
AUTHORIZATION.—Section 
519(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2654) is amended by striking ‘‘2004’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘2010’’.
(b) IN-KIND SERVICES.—Section 519(g)(3) of such Act 
(114 Stat. 2655) is amended by inserting before the period 
at the end of the first sentence ‘‘if such services are provided 
not more than 5 years before the date of initiation of the 
project or activity’’.
SEC. 5045. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA. 
Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$30,000,000’’; and
187
(2) by striking ‘‘Lake and Porter’’ and inserting 
‘‘Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter’’.
SEC. 5046. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA. 
(a) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary shall convey the re-
maining water supply storage allocation in Rathbun Lake, 
Iowa, to the Rathbun Regional Water Association (in this 
section referred to as the ‘‘Water Association’’). 
(b) COST SHARING.—Notwithstanding the Water Sup-
ply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), the Water Association 
shall pay 100 percent of the cost of the water supply storage 
allocation to be conveyed under subsection (a). The Sec-
retary shall credit toward such non-Federal share the cost 
of any structures and facilities constructed by the Water 
Association at the project. 
(c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Before conveying the 
water supply storage allocation under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Water As-
sociation, under which the Water Association shall agree 
to—
(1) in accordance with designs approved by the 
Chief of Engineers, construct structures and facilities 
referred to in subsection (b) that have a value equal 
to or greater than the amount that otherwise would 
be paid to the Federal Government for the costs of the