HR 2864 PCS 
(b) STATUS REPORT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with the Presi-
dent’s submission to Congress of the President’s re-
quest for appropriations for the Civil Works Pro-
gram for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
report on the status of construction of projects that 
require mitigation under section 906 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and the status of such miti-
gation. 
(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—The status report 
shall include the status of all projects that are under 
construction, all projects for which the President re-
quests funding for the next fiscal year, and all 
projects that have completed construction, but have 
not completed the mitigation required under section 
906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986. 
SEC. 2028. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of expediting the 
cost-effective design and construction of wetlands restora-
tion that is part of an authorized water resources project,
HR 2864 PCS 
the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements 
under section 6305 of title 31, United States Code, with 
nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands restora-
tion to carry out such design and construction on behalf 
of the Secretary. 
(b) LIMITATIONS.— 
(1) PER PROJECT LIMIT.—A cooperative agree-
ment under this section shall not obligate the Sec-
retary to pay the nonprofit organization more than 
$1,000,000 for any single wetlands restoration 
project. 
(2) ANNUAL LIMIT.—The total value of work 
carried out under cooperative agreements under this 
section may not exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal 
year. 
SEC. 2029. PROJECT PLANNING. 
(a) DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL BENE-
FITS.— 
(1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of 
Congress that, consistent with the Economic and 
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 
and Related Land Resources Implementation Stud-
ies (1983), the Secretary may select a water re-
sources project alternative that does not maximize 
net national economic development benefits or net
HR 2864 PCS 
national ecosystem restoration benefits if there is an 
overriding reason based on other Federal, State, 
local, or international concerns. 
(2) FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, NAVIGATION, 
AND
HURRICANE
STORM
DAMAGE
REDUCTION 
PROJECTS.—With respect to a water resources 
project the primary purpose of which is flood dam-
age reduction, navigation, or hurricane and storm 
damage reduction, an overriding reason for selecting 
a plan other than the plan that maximizes net na-
tional economic development benefits may be if the 
Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest 
concurs, that an alternative plan is feasible and 
achieves the project purposes while providing greater 
ecosystem restoration benefits. 
(3) ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION
PROJECTS.— 
With respect to a water resources project the pri-
mary purpose of which is ecosystem restoration, an 
overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the 
plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restora-
tion benefits may be if the Secretary determines, 
and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an alter-
native plan is feasible and achieves the project pur-
poses while providing greater economic development 
benefits.
HR 2864 PCS 
(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 obtaining the participation of a non-Federal in-
terest, may study and recommend construction of 
additional measures, a separate project, or separable 
project element to achieve those benefits. 
(2) PRIMARILY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BEN-
EFITS.—In conducting a study of the feasibility of a 
project where the primary benefits are expected to 
be associated with ecosystem restoration, the Sec-
retary may identify economic benefits that may be 
achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the 
participation of a non-Federal interest, may study 
and recommend construction of additional measures, 
a separate project, or separable project element to 
achieve those benefits. 
(3) RULES
APPLICABLE
TO
CERTAIN
MEAS-
URES, PROJECTS, AND ELEMENTS.—Any additional 
measures, separate project, or separable element 
identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and rec-
HR 2864 PCS 
ommended for construction shall not be considered 
integral to the underlying project and, if authorized, 
shall be subject to a separate partnership agreement, 
unless a non-Federal interest agrees to share in the 
cost of the additional measures, project, or separable 
element. 
(c) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR 
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility 
study for a project for flood damage reduction shall in-
clude, 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 
alternatives are evaluated in an equitable manner. 
SEC. 2030. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. 
(a) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT 
PEER REVIEW.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Project studies shall be sub-
ject to a peer review by an independent panel of ex-
perts as determined under this section. 
(2) SCOPE.—The peer review may include a re-
view of the economic and environmental assumptions
HR 2864 PCS 
and projections, project evaluation data, economic 
analyses, environmental analyses, engineering anal-
yses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for 
integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in 
evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of 
proposed 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 en-