Legislation News & Report (TM) 

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Managing America: Environment and Resources

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Week Ending April 20, 2006

H.R.1495 To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

Projects are authorized and de-authorized and project funding is determined for water resource development and conservation to accomplish improved navigation, environmental and ecosystem restoration, hurricane, flood and storm damage reduction, water supply and dam security. Most of the projects are the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers and involve major projects such as the Everglades restoration in Florida and the new Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force to improve waning natural buffers of protection against storm surge from the Gulf of Mexico.

The House passed the bill with minor amendments and with a focus on three major projects; the Florida Everglades, New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and the Upper Mississippi River.

The Senate debated, amended and passed this bill after agreeing to and amending substitute content. The bills are similar but the Senate agreed to spend more, at least $15 billion on Gulf coast projects that would ensure more protection for New Orleans and the surrounding area from category five hurricanes. Spending for the House version is "$6.7 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $6.5 billion over the 10 years after 2012. The Senate version would spend about $5.5 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $26 billion over the 10 years after 2012." Hundreds of projects are authorized in the bills an which projects the Senate or House favor will be settled in the House/Senate conference.

The Senate, however, parted company with the House by introducing two amendments to the bill dealing with troop readiness and a withdrawal from Iraq. Details of those amendments can be read here.

The Corps’ role was explained in a bill document: “For more than 175 years, the Corps has supported navigation needs by maintaining and improving the nation's waterways in 41 States. The Corps also maintains 300 commercial harbors, through which more than two billion tons of cargo pass each year. With more than 13 million American jobs dependent on our import and export trade, these ports are vital to our economic security. The ports and waterways maintained by the Corps also play a vital role in our nation's defense.”

The Senate would limit the number of projects the Corps would work on to 40, down from 50.

The bill provides particularly for Florida, Louisiana and the upper reaches of the Mississippi River.

Upper Mississippi regions will benefit from navigation and ecosystem improvements to include the Illinois Waterway system. The effort will span 854 miles from the Ohio River and down the Mississippi to the St Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis, MN. About 327 miles of the Illinois Waterway will be improved. Mooring facilities will be installed at various locks and new locks are authorized on the Mississippi and the Illinois Waterway. The overall project cost is $1.8 billion. Ecosystem restoration would spend $1.6 billion. State, federal and private individuals will oversee the projects as an oversight board.

New Orleans dikes and levees may be raised, replaced or modified as the Corps sees fit to provide necessary protection to justify opening some areas to the National Flood Insurance Program. New to the area will be a task force comprised of various federal Department Secretaries and State officials called the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration task Force. The Task Force will make recommendations and propose strategies fro protection repair, restoration and maintenance of the Louisiana ecosystem. It is spending for coastal protection of the New Orleans area that would increase the Senate spending for such protection to $15 billion.

Florida Everglade restoration would move slightly forward with a section of the bill that authorizes three projects related to the restoration. The Indian River Lagoon ecosystem restoration would move forward with $1.4 billion, The Federal cost is estimated at $682.5 million and the non-Federal, State, costs is around $682.5 million. The plan consists of 12,600 acres of new reservoirs for surface water storage, 8,700 acres of storm-water treatment areas for water quality improvement, 7,900,000 cubic yards of muck removal, 92,000 acres of natural water storage areas, 3,100 acres of floodplain wetlands and de-authorizes the C-44 storage reservoir.

The related Picayune Strand element of the Florida project is estimated at $187.7 million Federal and the same from the State of Florida. The third, site 1 impoundment projects will divide $80 million between the state and federal governments. Credit to reimburse non-federal participants in the restoration project is granted but future claims must be based on a written agreement that the non-federal entity would do the work.

A three mile section of the famed Tamiami Trail would be raised or replaced with bridges to allow better Everglade’s water flow. The cost in $144 million and will be federal funds only. Three projects uncompleted are de-authorized that have been superseded by this project effort to save $240.4 million. A regional engineering model is ordered for $10 million.

Sponsor:  Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN-8^th)

Vote: A motion to recommit the bill with instructions failed 194 to 226 April 19, 2007 (RC 233). The bill passed the House 394 to 25 April 19, 2007 (RC 234)

Passed the Senate 91 to 4 May 16, 2007 (RV 170)

Cost to the taxpayers: “CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1495 would cost about $6.7 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $6.5 billion over the 10 years after 2012. (Some construction costs and operations and maintenance would continue or commence after those first 15 years.)” CBO estimates that the Senate version of the bill would cost about $5.5 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $26 billion over the 10 years after
2012."

Earmark Certification:   Not applicable to this bill.

## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

MORE INFORMATION

PROJECTS

PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS (Specific Provisions for Specific Projects)

REAUTHORIZED PROJECTS

DEAUTHORIZED PROJECTS

LAND CONVEYANCES

STUDIES

MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS

PROJECTS

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Small projects for flood damage reduction

Small projects for navigation

Small projects for emergency stream bank protection.

Small projects for improvement of the quality of the environment

Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration

Small projects for shoreline protection

Small projects for snagging and sediment removal

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.

(1) HALEYVILLE, ALABAMA- Project for flood damage reduction, Haleyville, Alabama.

(2) WEISS LAKE, ALABAMA- Project for flood damage reduction, Weiss Lake, Alabama.

(3) LITTLE COLORADO RIVER LEVEE, ARIZONA- Project for flood damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.

(4) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS- Project for flood damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.

(5) BARREL SPRINGS WASH, PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, California.

(6) BORREGO SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Borrego Springs, California.

(7) COLTON, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Colton, California.

(8) DUNLAP STREAM, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, Yucaipa, California.

(9) HUNTS CANYON WASH, PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, California.

(10) ONTARIO AND CHINO, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and Chino, California.

(11) SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, California.

(12) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California.

(13) WILDWOOD CREEK, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.

(14) ST. FRANCISVILLE, LOUSIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, St. Francisville, Louisiana.

(15) SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS- Project for flood damage reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.

(16) CASS RIVER, MICHIGAN- Project for flood damage reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan.

(17) CROW RIVER, ROCKFORD, MINNESOTA- Project for flood damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.

(18) MARSH CREEK, MINNESOTA- Project for flood damage reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.

(19) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, BORUP, MINNESOTA- Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.

(20) BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI- Project for flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.

(21) ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY- Project for flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.

(22) CANNISTEO RIVER, ADDISON, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.

(23) COHOCTON RIVER, CAMPBELL, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.

(24) DRY AND OTTER CREEKS, CORTLAND, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland, New York.

(25) EAST RIVER, SILVER BEACH, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New York.

(26) EAST VALLEY CREEK, ANDOVER, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.

(27) SUNNYSIDE BROOK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, Westchester County, New York.

(28) LITTLE YANKEE RUN, OHIO- Project for flood damage reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio.

(29) LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK, WARRENTON, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsylvania.

(30) SOUTHAMPTON CREEK WATERSHED, SOUTHAMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.

(31) SPRING CREEK, LOWER MACUNGIE TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania.

(32) YARDLEY AQUEDUCT, SILVER AND BROCK CREEKS, YARDLEY, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Yardley Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania.

(33) SURFSIDE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA- Project for flood damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.

(34) CONGELOSI DITCH, MISSOURI CITY, TEXAS- Project for flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas.

(35) DILLEY, TEXAS- Project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas.

(b) Special Rules-

(1) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS- The Secretary may proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a), notwithstanding that the project is located within the boundaries of the flood control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950, (64 Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41).

(2) ONTARIO AND CHINO, CALIFORNIA- The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and Chino, California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

(3) SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA- The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing 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 Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

(4) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA- The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

(5) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, BORUP, MINNESOTA- In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a) the Secretary may consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing 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 Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

(6) ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY- The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

(7) DILLEY, TEXAS- The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

To Section Head

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.

(1) ST. JOHNS BLUFF TRAINING WALL, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA- Project for emergency streambank protection, St. Johns Bluff Training Wall, Duval County, Florida.

(2) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, IBERVILLE PARISH, LOUISIANA- Projects for emergency streambank restoration, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.

(3) OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA- Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.

(4) PINEY POINT LIGHTHOUSE, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MARYLAND- Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.

(5) PUG HOLE LAKE, MINNESOTA- Project for emergency streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.

(6) MIDDLE FORK GRAND RIVER, GENTRY COUNTY, MISSOURI- Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.

(7) PLATTE RIVER, PLATTE CITY, MISSOURI- Project for emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City, Missouri.

(8) RUSH CREEK, PARKVILLE, MISSOURI- Project for emergency streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri, including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.

(9) DRY AND OTTER CREEKS, CORTLAND COUNTY, NEW YORK- Project for emergency streambank protection, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland County, New York.

(10) KEUKA LAKE, HAMMONDSPORT, NEW YORK- Project for emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New York.

(11) KOWAWESE UNIQUE AREA AND HUDSON RIVER, NEW WINDSOR, NEW YORK- Project for emergency streambank protection, Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

(12) OWEGO CREEK, TIOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK- Project for emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga County, New York.

(13) HOWARD ROAD OUTFALL, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE- Project for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee.

(14) MITCH FARM DITCH AND LATERAL D, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE- Project for emergency streambank protection, Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.

(15) WOLF RIVER TRIBUTARIES, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE- Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.

(16) JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS- Project for emergency streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.

(17) WELLS RIVER, NEWBURY, VERMONT- Project for emergency streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.

To Section Head

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.

HAINES, ALASKA- The project for navigation, Haines, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,808,000;

PORT LIONS, ALASKA- The project for navigation, Port Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 14, 2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,906,000. Not in Senate bill

RIO SALADO OESTE, ARIZONA- The project for environmental restoration, Rio Salado Oeste, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000. Not in Senate bill

SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, ARIZONA- The project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,400,000. Not in Senate bill

TANQUE VERDE CREEK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA- The project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,070,000.

MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS- The project for flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,010,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,840,000. Not in Senate bill

HAMILTON CITY, CALIFORNIA- The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Hamilton City, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $52,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,100,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of $18,300,000.

IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA- The project for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,250,000.

MATILIJA DAM, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- The project for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $144,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $54,800,000.

MIDDLE CREEK, LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000.

NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA-

(A) IN GENERAL- The project for environmental restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $134,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $87,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $47,000,000.

DENVER COUNTY REACH, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, DENVER, COLORADO- The project for environmental restoration, Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $21,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,680,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,370,000.

MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA-

 IN GENERAL- The project for navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of $125,270,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $75,140,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $50,130,000.

EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS- The project for environmental restoration and recreation, East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,350,000.

PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, ILLINOIS- The project for environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,380,000.

WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS- The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at a total cost of $17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000.

WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS- The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at a total cost of $17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000.

LICKING RIVER BASIN, CYNTHIANA, KENTUCKY- The project for flood damage reduction, Licking River Basin, Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,370,000.

(BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LOUISIANA- The project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,680,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA-

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $886,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $576,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $310,345,000.

PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA- The project for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $131,250,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $105,315,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,935,000.

SMITH ISLAND, SOMERSET COUNTY, MARYLAND- The project for environmental restoration, Smith Island, Somerset County, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of $15,580,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,127,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,453,000.

ROSEAU RIVER, ROSEAU, MINNESOTA- The project for flood damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $25,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,820,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,280,000.

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL, MISSISSIPPI- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, Mississippi Coastal, Mississippi, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $107,690,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,690,000.

KANSAS CITYS LEVEES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS- The project for flood damage reduction, Kansas Citys levees, Missouri and Kansas, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,900,000.

 SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, BLUE RIVER, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI- The project for flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Blue River, Kansas City, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $16,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,037,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,943,000.

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNSENDS INLET, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $54,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $35,069,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,291,000, and at an estimated total cost of $202,500,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $101,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $101,250,000.

HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE PARK, NEW JERSEY-

The project for environmental restoration, Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 25, 2006, at a total cost of $34,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $22,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,900,000.

In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey department of environmental 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.

MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, and at an estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $59,840,000.

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 2006, at a total cost of $115,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,200,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,500,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,250,000.

SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $42,800,000.

SOUTHWEST VALLEY, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO- The project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, Bernalillo County, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,150,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,690,000.

MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total cost of $14,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,300,000.

HOCKING RIVER, MONDAY CREEK SUB-BASIN, OHIO- The project for environmental restoration, Hocking River, Monday Creek Sub-basin, Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2006, at a total cost of $20,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,440,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,540,000.

TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA- The project for flood damage reduction, town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of $44,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,575,000.

Pawley's ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawley's Island, South Carolina, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,600,000.

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS- The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $100,300,000.

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, MATAGORDA BAY RE-ROUTE, TEXAS- The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS- The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of $14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PHASE I, TEXAS- The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $41,090,000.

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA- The project for Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000.

CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA- The project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $31,229,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $680,874,000.

To Section head

Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the environment.

(1) BALLONA CREEK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona Creek, Los Angeles County, California.

(2) BALLONA LAGOON TIDE GATES, MARINA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey, California.

(3) FT. GEORGE INLET, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ft. George Inlet, Duval County, Florida.

(4) RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa.

(5) SMITHVILLE LAKE, MISSOURI- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.

(6) DELAWARE BAY, NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware Bay, New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster restoration.

(7) TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.

To Section head

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

(1) CYPRESS CREEK, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery, Alabama.

(2) BLACK LAKE, ALASKA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, Alaska, at the head of the Chignik watershed.

(3) BEN LOMOND DAM, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz, California.

(4) DOCKWEILER BLUFFS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dockweiler Bluffs, Los Angeles County, California.

(5) SALT RIVER, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Salt River, California.

(6) SANTA ROSA CREEK, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the vicinity of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, California.

(7) STOCKTON DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL AND LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San Joaquin River, California.

(8) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to address aquatic nuisance species.

(9) BISCAYNE BAY, FLORIDA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.

(10) CLAM BAYOU AND DINKINS BAYOU, SANIBEL ISLAND, FLORIDA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.

(11) CHATTAHOOCHEE FALL LINE, GEORGIA AND ALABAMA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line, Georgia and Alabama.

(12) LONGWOOD COVE, GAINESVILLE, GEORGIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville, Georgia.

(13) CITY PARK, UNIVERSITY LAKES, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes, Louisiana.

(14) MILL POND, LITTLETON, MASSACHUSETTS- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts.

(15) PINE TREE BROOK, MILTON, MASSACHUSETTS- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.

(16) RUSH LAKE, MINNESOTA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.

(17) SOUTH FORK OF THE CROW RIVER, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.

(18) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, St. Louis, Missouri.

(19) TRUCKEE RIVER, RENO, NEVADA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including features for fish passage for Washoe County.

(20) Grover's MILL POND, NEW JERSEY- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.

(21) DUGWAY CREEK, BRATENAHL, OHIO- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.

(22) JOHNSON CREEK, GRESHAM, OREGON- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.

(23) BEAVER CREEK, BEAVER AND SALEM, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and Salem, Pennsylvania.

(24) CEMENTON DAM, LEHIGH RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, Pennsylvania.

(25) SAUCON CREEK, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

(26) BLACKSTONE RIVER, RHODE ISLAND- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.

(27) WILSON BRANCH, CHERAW, SOUTH CAROLINA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South Carolina.

(28) WHITE RIVER, BETHEL, VERMONT- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.

(b) Special Rule- The Secretary shall carry out the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, Alaska referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

To Section Head

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.

(1) NELSON LAGOON, ALASKA- Project for shoreline protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.

(2) SANIBEL ISLAND, FLORIDA- Project for shoreline protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.

(3) APRA HARBOR, GUAM- Project for shoreline protection, Apra Harbor, Guam.

(4) PITI, CABRAS ISLAND, GUAM- Project for shoreline protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.

(5) NARROWS AND GRAVESEND BAY, UPPER NEW YORK BAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK- Project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.

(6) DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for shoreline protection, Delaware River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Pennsylvania.

(7) PORT ARANSAS, TEXAS- Project for shoreline protection, Port Aransas, Texas.

To Section Head

Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

To Section Head

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska.

Sec. 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.

maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended shall be $8,000,000

Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.

direct the Secretary to take such action as is necessary to correct design deficiencies in the Sitka Harbor Breakwater, at full Federal expense. The estimated cost is $6,300,000.

Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska.

maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended shall be $10,000,000

Sec. 3005. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.

authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $54,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $35,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of $19,100,000.

Sec. 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.

allow non-Federal interests to construct a mooring facility within the existing authorized harbor channel;

Sec. 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.

to add environmental restoration as a project purpose; and (to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal share of the cost of the project over a 30-year period

Sec. 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.

authorize the Secretary to construct the auxiliary spillway generally in accordance with the Post Authorization Change Report, American River Watershed Project (Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise Projects), dated December 2006, at a total cost of $683,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $444,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $239,000,000.

Sec. 3009. Compton Creek, California.

modified to add environmental restoration and recreation as project purposes.

Sec. 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.

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. 3011. Hamilton Airfield, California.

direct the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 19, 2004, at a total cost of $228,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $171,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $57,000,000.

Sec. 3012. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California.

provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel element of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind services and materials

Sec. 3013. Kaweah River, California.

direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, or provide reimbursement not to exceed $800,000, for the costs of any work carried out by the non-Federal interest

Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.

direct the Secretary to determine whether maintenance of the project is feasible, and if the Secretary determines that maintenance of the project is feasible, to carry out such maintenance

Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California.

authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $105,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,000,000.

Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California.

The Secretary shall 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. 3017. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.

authorize the Secretary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the project

Sec. 3018. Pinole Creek, California.

credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest

Sec. 3019. Prado Dam, California.

Sec. 3020. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.

Secretary shall determine the amount of reimbursements paid to the Sacramento Flood Control Agency for payment of the Federal share of the cost of the project referred to in paragraph

Sec. 3021. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.

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. 3022. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.

Sec. 3023. Seven Oaks Dam, California.

direct the Secretary to conduct a study for the reallocation of water storage at the Seven Oaks Dam, California, for water conservation.

Sec. 3024. Upper Guadalupe River, California.

authorize the Secretary to construct the project generally in accordance with the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San Jose, California, Limited Reevaluation Report, dated March, 2004, at a total cost of $244,500,000.

Sec. 3025. Walnut Creek Channel, California.

Sec. 3026. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.

Sec. 3027. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.

Sec. 3028. Yuba River Basin project, California.

authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,700,000

Sec. 3029. South Platte River Basin, Colorado.

Sec. 3030. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.

is modified to add recreation as a project purpose.

Sec. 3031. Brevard County, Florida.

direct the Secretary to establish the reach of the project as the reach between the Florida department of environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance of 7.6 miles

Sec. 3032. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.

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. 3033. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.

the Secretary shall construct a sediment trap.

Sec. 3034. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.

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. 3035. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.

authorize the Secretary to extend the navigation features in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $14,658,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,022,000

Sec. 3036. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.

direct the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $15,190,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,870,000, and at an estimated total cost of $65,000,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project.

Sec. 3037. Miami Harbor, Florida.

include as a project purpose environmental mitigation required before July 18, 2003, by a Federal, State, or local environmental agency for unauthorized or unanticipated environmental impacts within, or in the vicinity of, the authorized project

Sec. 3038. Peanut Island, Florida.

maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Peanut Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be $9,750,000.

Sec. 3039. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.

Sec. 3040. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.

authorize the Secretary to construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles long and centered on Tampa Harbor Cut B if the Secretary determines that such improvements are necessary for navigation safety.

Sec. 3041. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.

Secretary may exchange lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile district engineer, April 5, 1996 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

Sec. 3042. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.

maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be $6,175,000.

Sec. 3043. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.

Secretary may carry out improvements to recreational facilities at the Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, North Fork, Clearwater River, Idaho

Sec. 3044. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.

modified--

(1) to include the channel between the harbor and the Illinois River; and

(2) to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the local cooperation agreement dated August 18, 1983, with the Beardstown Community Park District.

Sec. 3045. Cache River Levee, Illinois.

add environmental restoration as a project purpose.

Sec. 3046. Chicago River, Illinois.

extending from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the Division Street Bridge is modified to be no wider than 66 feet.

Sec. 3047. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois.

Treatment as Single Project

Sec. 3048. Emiquon, Illinois.

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000

Sec. 3049. Lasalle, Illinois.

Secretary shall give priority to work in the vicinity of LaSalle, Illinois, on the Illinois and Michigan Canal

Sec. 3050. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.

modified to add environmental restoration as a project purpose. maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended shall be $7,500,000.

Sec. 3051. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.

direct the Secretary to provide a 100-year level of flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-Thompson, Woodhurst, and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's River, Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana, at a total cost of $5,300,000

Sec. 3052. Koontz Lake, Indiana.

further modified to direct the Secretary to seek to reduce the cost of the project by using innovative technologies and cost reduction measures determined from a review of non-Federal lake dredging projects in the vicinity of Koontz Lake

Sec. 3053. White River, Indiana.

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

Sec. 3054. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.

modified to include enhanced public access and recreational enhancements, at a Federal cost of $3,000,000.

Sec. 3055. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.

modified to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide a 100-year level of flood protection for the city of Prestonsburg.

Sec. 3056. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed.

authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $187,000,00

Sec. 3057. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.

authorized to study, design, construct, operate, 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 communities, and national and local water resources development of the Army Corps of Engineers in South Central Louisiana

Sec. 3058. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.

enhance fish and wildlife resources, at a total cost of $4,000,000.

Sec. 3059. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.

Sec. 3060. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana.

authorize the purchase and reforesting of lands that have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses

Sec. 3061. Melville, Louisiana.

may include the town of Melville, Louisiana, as one of the alternative sites'.

Sec. 3062. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.

modified to direct the Secretary 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. 3063. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.

The Federal share of the cost of such work shall be 70 percent.

Sec. 3064. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana.

The non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 35 percent.'.

Sec. 3065. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.

maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be $26,900,000

Sec. 3066. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.

maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be $3,000,000

Sec. 3067. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.

`management plan' means the management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan, that is in effect as of the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2006.

Sec. 3068. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.

Secretary shall expedite development of the dredged material management plan for the project for navigation

Sec. 3069. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.

The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second lock, of a width not less than 110 feet and a length not less than 1,200 feet, adjacent to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan

Sec. 3070. Ada, Minnesota.

modified to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project

Sec. 3071. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.

authorize the Secretary to provide public access and recreational facilities

Sec. 3072. Grand Marais, Minnesota.

modified to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost

Sec. 3073. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.

Sec. 3074. Granite Falls, Minnesota.

the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, substantially in accordance 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

Sec. 3075. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.

develop a final design and prepare plans and specifications to correct the harbor entrance and mooring conditions at the project.

Sec. 3076. Red Lake River, Minnesota.

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 for 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. 3077. Silver Bay, Minnesota.

modified to include operation and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.

Sec. 3078. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.

is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.

Sec. 3079. Two Harbors, Minnesota.

include construction of a dredged material disposal 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 maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000

Sec. 3080. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.

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 in-kind services and materials

Sec. 3081. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.

The Secretary shall complete a feasibility study for the project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi

Sec. 3082. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.

is amended by striking `$10,000,000' and inserting `$12,000,000'

Sec. 3083. L-15 levee, Missouri.

L-15 levee system that is under the jurisdiction of the Consolidated North County Levee District and situated along the right descending bank of the Mississippi River from the confluence of that river with the Missouri River and running upstream approximately 14 miles shall be considered to be a Federal levee for purposes of cost sharing

Sec. 3084. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.

modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of the 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. 3085. River Des Peres, Missouri.

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. 3086. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.

allow the non-Federal interest for the project to use, and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the project

Sec. 3087. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.

direct the Secretary to provide credit toward 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

Sec. 3088. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.

modified to incorporate the project for shoreline erosion control, Cape May Point, New Jersey

Sec. 3089. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.

modified to direct the Secretary to include the benefits and costs of preserving natural flood storage in any future economic analysis of the project.

Sec. 3090. Buffalo Harbor, New York.

modified to include measures to enhance public access, at Federal cost of $500,000

Sec. 3091. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.

amended by striking `maximum Federal cost of $5,200,000' and inserting `total cost of $20,000,000'

Sec. 3092. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.

authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage facility to receive dredged material from the project

Sec. 3093. New York State Canal System.

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, Rochester, and Buffalo

Sec. 3094. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.

amended by striking `$2,500,000' and inserting `$6,000,000'

Sec. 3095. Mahoning River, Ohio.

Sec. 3096. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.

The Secretary may remove debris from the project for navigation, Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, Philadelphia to the Sea

Sec. 3097. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, including construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline erosion between .07 and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State Route 994 on the east shore of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3098. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

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

Sec. 3099. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

modified to include as a project element the project for flood control for Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

striking `$180,000,000' and inserting `$200,000,000

Sec. 3100. South Central Pennsylvania.

Secretary shall coordinate with non-Federal interests to review opportunities for increased public access

Sec. 3101. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3102. Cedar Bayou, Texas.

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

Sec. 3103. Freeport Harbor, Texas.

direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of the planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest

Sec. 3104. Lake Kemp, Texas.

Secretary may not take any legal or administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp improvement before the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the date of any transfer of ownership of the improvement occurring after the date of enactment of this Act

Sec. 3105. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.

include as part of the project flood protection works to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed by the non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the vicinity of Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that such work meets feasibility requirements

Sec. 3106. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.

modified to include recreation as a project purpose.

Sec. 3107. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.

The Secretary is directed to accept from the city of Paris, Texas, $3,461,432 as payment in full of monies owed to the United States for water supply storage space in Pat Mayse Lake, Texas

Sec. 3108. Proctor Lake, Texas.

The Secretary is authorized to purchase fee simple title to all properties located within the boundaries, and necessary for the operation, of the Proctor Lake

Sec. 3109. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.

modified to authorize the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project

Sec. 3110. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties, Virginia.

modified to direct the Secretary to determine the ability of Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties, Virginia, to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of the project

Sec. 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.

striking `at a total cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.' and inserting `at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $750,000

Sec. 3112. Duwamish/Green, Washington.

credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest

Sec. 3113. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.

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

Sec. 3114. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.

amended by striking `$47,000,000' and inserting `$99,000,000'

Sec. 3115. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.

The Secretary shall ensure the preservation and restoration of the structure known as the `Jenkins House', and the reconstruction of associated buildings and landscape features of such structure located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp

Sec. 3116. Northern West Virginia.

striking `$8,400,000' and inserting `$12,000,000'; and

(3) by striking `$4,200,000' each place it appears and inserting `$6,000,000'.

Sec. 3117. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.

deepen the upstream reach of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total cost of $405,000

Sec. 3118. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.

To Section Head

Sec. 3119. Continuation of project authorizations. AND Sec. 3120. Project reauthorizations.

(1) MENOMINEE HARBOR AND RIVER, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN- The project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin, authorized 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 Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852 (10 Stat. 58), consisting of the channel in the south part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176).

(3) HEARDING ISLAND INLET, DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA- The project for dredging, Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, authorized by section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027).

Sec. 3121. Project deauthorizations.

(1) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT- The portion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of 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 northeasterly about 139.52 feet to a point along the eastern 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) MYSTIC RIVER, CONNECTICUT- The portion of the project for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-deep channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, starting at a point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running north 59 degrees 21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 feet to a point N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running north 51 degrees 04 minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 feet to a point N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running north 43 degrees 01 minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 feet to a point N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running north 06 degrees 42 minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 feet to a point N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running south 21 degrees 21 minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 feet to a point N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running south 53 degrees 34 minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 feet to the point of origin.

(3) NEW LONDON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT- 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 western limit of the existing project, N188,802.75, E779,462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189,554.87, E780,612.53, thence running southeasterly 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 southeasterly 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.

(4) FALMOUTH HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS- The portion of the project for navigation, th Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side of the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north 25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to a point N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 degrees 7 minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point N201,112.15, E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 minute 0.3 seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, E845,674.65, thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 seconds west 665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 160.76 feet to the point of origin.

(5) 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, 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.

(6) CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON- The portion of the project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, authorized by the first section 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.

(7) AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, MASSACHUSETTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The portion of the project for navigation, Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 8-foot deep anchorage in the cove described in subparagraph (B).

(B) DESCRIPTION OF PORTION- The portion of the project described in subparagraph (A) is more particularly described as the portion beginning at a point along the southern limit of the existing project, N254,332.00, E1,023,103.96, thence running northwesterly about 761.60 feet to a point along the western limit of the existing project N255,076.84, E1,022,945.07, thence running southwesterly about 38.11 feet to a point N255,038.99, E1,022,940.60, thence running southeasterly about 267.07 feet to a point N254,772.00, E1,022,947.00, thence running southeasterly about 462.41 feet to a point N254,320.06, E1,023,044.84, thence running northeasterly about 60.31 feet to the point of origin.

(b) Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut- The project for navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1829, and by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1029), and section 364 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3733-3734), is further modified to redesignate a portion of the 9-foot-deep channel as an anchorage area, approximately 900 feet in length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying generally north of a line with points at coordinates N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and N107,938.74, E452,265.74.

(c) Saco River, Maine- The portion of the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and described as a 6-foot deep, 10-acre turning basin located at the head of navigation, is redesignated as an anchorage area.

(d) Union River, Maine- The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as an anchorage area that portion 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 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about 132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61.

(e) Mystic River, Massachusetts- The portion of the project for navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 96), between a line starting at a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45 and ending at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and a line starting at a point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced from a 100-foot wide channel to a 50-foot wide channel after the date of enactment of this Act described as follows: Beginning at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running southeasterly about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, E707,601.27, thence running southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point N514,904.84, E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about 319.90 feet to a point with coordinates N514,595.15, E707,746.15, thence running northwesterly about 163.37 feet to a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38, thence running northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a point N514.889.47, E707,618.30, thence running northwesterly about 166.61 feet to a point N515.044.62, E707,557.58, thence running northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 50.90 feet returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85.

(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'.

To Top

Sec. 3122. Land conveyances.

(a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall convey to the State of Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest in and to real property within the State acquired by the Federal Government as mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.).

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The conveyance by the United States under this subsection shall be subject to--

(i) the condition that the State of Arkansas agree to operate, maintain, and manage the real property for fish and wildlife, recreation, and environmental purposes at no cost or expense to the United States; and

(ii) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be in the interest of the United States.

(B) REVERSION- If the Secretary determines that the real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public ownership or the State ceases to operate, maintain, and manage the real property in accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to the United States, at the option of the Secretary.

(3) MITIGATION- Nothing in this subsection extinguishes the responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-Federal interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) from the obligation to implement mitigation for such project that existed on the day prior to the transfer authorized by this subsection.

(b) Milford, Kansas-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to real property consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station.

(2) REVERSION- If the Secretary determines that the real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public ownership or ceases to be operated and maintained as 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.

(c) Pike County, Missouri-

(1) IN GENERAL- At such time as S.S.S., Inc., conveys all right, title and interest in and to the real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the Secretary shall convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc.

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION- The parcels of land referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) NON-FEDERAL LAND- Approximately 42 acres, the exact legal description to be determined by mutual agreement of S.S.S., Inc., and the Secretary, subject to any existing flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about a 200-foot distance from Drake Island (also known as Grimes Island).

(B) FEDERAL LAND- Approximately 42 acres, the exact legal description to be determined by mutual agreement of S.S.S. Inc., and the Secretary, situated in Pike County, Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers MIs-7 and a portion of FM-46 (both tracts on Buffalo Island), administered by the Corps of Engineers.

(3) CONDITIONS- The exchange of real property under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:

(A) DEEDS-

(i) NON-FEDERAL LAND- The conveyance of the real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.

(ii) FEDERAL LAND- The instrument of conveyance used to convey the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc., shall be by quitclaim deed and contain such reservations, terms, and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to allow the United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.

(B) REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS- S.S.S., Inc., may remove, and the Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc., to remove, any improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A)

(C) TIME LIMIT FOR EXCHANGE- The land exchange under paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(4) VALUE OF PROPERTIES- If the appraised fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property conveyed to S.S.S., Inc., by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property conveyed to the United States by S.S.S., Inc., under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc., shall make a payment to the United States equal to the excess in cash or a cash equivalent that is satisfactory to the Secretary.

(d) 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 inserting `the Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,'; and

(2) by striking `such city' and inserting `the city of Boardman'.

(e) Lowell, Oregon-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may convey without consideration to Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to land and buildings thereon, known as Tract A-82, located in Lowell, Oregon, and described in paragraph (2).

(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY- The parcel of land authorized to be conveyed under paragraph (1) is as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the west line of Pioneer Street with the westerly extension of the north line of Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and recorded at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat Records; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 250.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon.

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS- Before conveying the parcel to the school district, the Secretary shall ensure that the conditions of buildings and facilities meet the requirements of applicable Federal law.

(4) REVERSION- If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to the United States, at the option of the United States.

(f) Lowell, Oregon-

(1) RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEED RESERVATIONS-

(A) RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEED RESERVATIONS- The Secretary may release and extinguish the deed reservations for access and communication cables contained in the quitclaim deed, dated January 26, 1965, and recorded February 15, 1965, in the records of Lane County, Oregon; except that such reservations may only be released and extinguished for the lands owned by the city of Lowell as described in the quitclaim deed, dated April 11, 1991, in such records.

(B) ADDITIONAL RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEED RESERVATIONS- The Secretary may also release and extinguish the same deed reservations referred to in subparagraph (A) over land owned by Lane County, Oregon, within the city limits of Lowell, Oregon, to accommodate the development proposals of the city of Lowell/St. Vincent de Paul, Lane County, affordable housing project; except that the Secretary may require, at no cost to the United States--

(i) the alteration or relocation of any existing facilities, utilities, roads, or similar improvements on such lands; and

(ii) the right-of-way for such facilities, utilities, or improvements, as a pre-condition of any release or extinguishment of the deed reservations.

(2) CONVEYANCE- The Secretary may convey to the city of Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value the parcel of land situated in the city of Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value consisting of the strip of federally-owned lands located northeast of West Boundary Road between Hyland Lane and the city of Lowell's eastward city limits.

(3) ADMINISTRATIVE COST- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the city of Lowell, Oregon, shall pay the administrative costs incurred by the United States to execute the release and extinguishment of the deed reservations under paragraph (1) and the conveyance under paragraph (2).

(g) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall convey to the State of SouthCarolina, by quitclaim deed, at fair market value, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2) that is managed, as of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420).

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION- Subject to paragraph (3), the real property referred to in paragraph (1) is the parcel contained in the portion of real property described in Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-0500.

(3) RESERVATION OF INTERESTS- The United States shall reserve--

(A) ownership of all real property included in the lease referred toin paragraph (2) that would have been acquired for operational purposes in accordance with the 1971 implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition Policy; and

(B) such other rights and interests in and to the real property to be conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary for authorized project purposes, including easement rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.

(4) NO EFFECT ON SHORE MANAGEMENT POLICY- The Shoreline Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineers shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development of land conveyed under this subsection.

(5) COST SHARING- In carrying out the conveyance under this subsection, the Secretary and the State shall comply with all obligations of any cost-sharing agreement between the Secretary and the State with respect to the real property described in paragraph (2) in effect as of the date of the conveyance.

(6) LAND NOT CONVEYED- The State shall continue to manage the real property described in paragraph (3) not conveyed under this subsection in accordance with the terms and conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-0500.

(h) Denison, Texas-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall offer to convey at fair marketvalue to the city of Denison, Texas, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the approximately 900 acres of land located in Grayson County, Texas, which is currently subject to an application for lease for public park and recreational purposes made by the city of Denison, dated August 17, 2005.

(2) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION- The exact acreage and description of the real property referred to in paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey paid for by the city of Denison, Texas, that is satisfactory to the Secretary.

(3) CONVEYANCE- On acceptance by the city of Denison, Texas, of an offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary may immediately convey the land surveyed under paragraph (2) by quitclaim deed to the city of Denison, Texas.

(i) Generally Applicable Provisions-

(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION- The exact acreage and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed under this section shall be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS- Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section.

(3) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS- The Secretary may require that any conveyance under this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of the United States.

(4) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE- An entity to which a conveyance ismade under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with the conveyance.

(5) LIABILITY- An entity to which a conveyance is made under thissection shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, 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. 3123. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions.

To Top

TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program.

The non-Federal interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share required under subsection (f) in the form of in-kind services and materials

Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites.

conduct a study to determine the nature and frequency of avian botulism problems in the vicinity of Lake Erie associated with dredged material disposal sites and shall make recommendations to eliminate the conditions that result in such problems

Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study.

conduct, at Federal expense, a comprehensive study of drought conditions in the southwestern United States, with particular emphasis on the Colorado River basin, the Rio Grande River basin, and the Great Basin. authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $7,000,000

Sec. 4004. Delaware River.

The Secretary shall review, in consultation with the Delaware River Basin Commission and the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Delaware River, published as House Document Numbered 522, 87th Congress, Second Session

Sec. 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

conduct, at Federal expense, a study to determine the potential impacts on navigation of construction of a bridge across Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

Sec. 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kuskokwim River, Alaska, in the vicinity of the village of Crooked Creek.

Sec. 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska.

conduct, at Federal expense, a study to determine the feasibility of providing navigation improvements at St. George Harbor, Alaska

Sec. 4008. Susitna River, Alaska.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower, recreation, and related purposes on the Susitna River, Alaska.

Sec. 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona

Sec. 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply source for Searcy County, Arkansas

Sec. 4011. Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California.

conduct a study of the Elkhorn Slough estuary, California, to determine the feasibility of conserving, enhancing, and restoring estuarine habitats by developing strategies to address hydrological management issues

Sec. 4012. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.

conduct a study of the Elkhorn Slough estuary, California, to determine the feasibility of conserving, enhancing, and restoring estuarine habitats by developing strategies to address hydrological management issues

Sec. 4013. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.

prepare a feasibility study for environmental restoration, flood control, recreation, and other aspects of Los Angeles River revitalization that is consistent with the goals of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan $20,000,000.

Sec. 4014. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and groundwater recharge, Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.

Sec. 4015. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.

shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply along the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California

Sec. 4016. Napa River, St. Helena, California.

for the purposes of improving flood management through reconnecting the river to its floodplain; restoring habitat, including riparian and aquatic habitat; improving fish passage and water quality; and restoring native plant communities

Sec. 4017. Orick, California.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Orick, California.

Sec. 4018. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California

Sec. 4019. Sacramento River, California.

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 Sacramento River, California

Sec. 4020. San Diego County, California.

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 Sacramento River, California

Sec. 4021. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, including the benefits and impacts of salinity in the Delta and the benefits to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, water quality, salinity control, water supply reliability, and recreation.

Sec. 4022. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.

review the planning, design, and land acquisition documents prepared by the California State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and other local interests in developing recommendations for measures to provide flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline, restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds

Sec. 4023. Twentynine Palms, California.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Pinto Cove Wash, in the vicinity of Twentynine Palms, California

Sec. 4024. Yucca Valley, California.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, West Burnt Mountain basin, in the vicinity of Yucca Valley, California.

Sec. 4025. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and other purposes for the Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.

Sec. 4026. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and related purposes along the Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware

Sec. 427. Collier County Beaches, Florida.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier County, Florida.

Sec. 4028. Lower St. Johns River, Florida.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier County, Florida.

Sec. 4029. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, water supply, and improvement of water quality at Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida

Sec. 4030. Meriwether County, Georgia.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Meriwether County, Georgia

Sec. 4031. Tybee Island, Georgia.

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

Sec. 4032. Boise River, Idaho.

to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as project purposes to be studied; and

(2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the study the cost, not to exceed $500,000, of work carried out by the non-Federal interest

Sec. 4033. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Ballard's Island, Illinois

Sec. 4034. Salem, Indiana.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project to provide an additional water supply source for Salem, Indiana

Sec. 4035. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood damage reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky

Sec. 4036. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for Dewey Lake, Kentucky, to add water supply as a project purpose

Sec. 4037. Louisville, Kentucky.

conduct a study of the project for flood control

Sec. 4038. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of deepening that portion of the navigation channel of the navigation project for Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island,

Sec. 4039. Clinton River, Michigan.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, Clinton River, Michigan

Sec. 4040. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction on Ore Lake and the Huron River for Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan

Sec. 4041. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction on Ore Lake and the Huron River for Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan

Sec. 4042. Northeast Mississippi.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction on Ore Lake and the Huron River for Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan

Sec. 4043. St. Louis, Missouri.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, St. Louis, Missouri, to restore or rehabilitate the levee system feature of the project for flood protection, St. Louis, Missouri,

Sec. 4044. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project in the vicinity of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, New Jersey, for the construction of a dredged material disposal transfer facility to make dredged material available for beneficial reuse

Sec. 4045. Bayonne, New Jersey.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, on the Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, New Jersey

Sec. 4046. Carteret, New Jersey.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, on the Raritan River, Carteret, New Jersey

Sec. 4047. Gloucester County, New Jersey.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gloucester County, New Jersey, including the feasibility of restoring the flood protection dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated tidegates in Gloucester County, New Jersey.

Sec. 4048. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gloucester County, New Jersey, including the feasibility of restoring the flood protection dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated tidegates in Gloucester County, New Jersey.

Sec. 4049. Batavia, New York.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gloucester County, New Jersey, including the feasibility of restoring the flood protection dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated tidegates in Gloucester County, New Jersey.

Sec. 4050. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gloucester County, New Jersey, including the feasibility of restoring the flood protection dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated tidegates in Gloucester County, New Jersey.

Sec. 4051. Finger Lakes, New York.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to address water quality and aquatic nuisance species

Sec. 4052. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection in the vicinity of Gallagher Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York

Sec. 4053. Newtown Creek, New York.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements on Newtown Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, New York.

Sec. 4054. Niagara River, New York.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for a low-head hydroelectric generating facility in the Niagara River, New York.

Sec. 4055. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.

conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying out a project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.

Sec. 4056. Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York.

a nonprofit organization may serve as the non-Federal interest for a study for the Upper Delaware River watershed, New York, being carried out

Sec. 4057. Lincoln County, North Carolina.

conduct a study of existing water and water quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County, North Carolina, to assist local interests in determining the most efficient and effective way to connect county infrastructure

Sec. 4058. Wilkes County, North Carolina.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Wilkes County, North Carolina

Sec. 4059. Yadkinville, North Carolina.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Yadkinville, North Carolina

Sec. 4060. Lake Erie, Ohio.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for power generation at confined disposal facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio.

Sec. 4061. Ohio River, Ohio.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction on the Ohio River in Mahoning, Columbiana, Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington, Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, Ohio

Sec. 4062. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements on rivers throughout the State of Oregon

Sec. 4063. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.

study of determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla River Basin, OregoN. credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest

Sec. 4064. Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4065. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.

conduct a study of the project for flood control, Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren, Pennsylvania

Sec. 4066. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction, Pennsylvania.

conduct a study of structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream bank protection, storm water management, channel clearing and modification, and watershed coordination measures in the Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the Allegheny River basin, Pennsylvania, and the Upper Ohio River basin, Pennsylvania, to provide a level of flood protection

Sec. 4067. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

conduct a study of the project for flood control, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), to investigate measures to rehabilitate the projec

Sec. 4068. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, at Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania, including the alternative of raising River Road

Sec. 4069. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.

shall conduct a study to reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction and water supply, Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, to determine the feasibility of carrying out the project.

Sec. 4070. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina

Sec. 4071. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina

Sec. 4072. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chattanooga Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Sec. 4073. Cleveland, Tennessee.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chattanooga Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Sec. 4074. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for recreation on, riverbank protection for, and environmental protection of, the Cumberland River and riparian habitats in the city of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.

Sec. 4075. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee

Sec. 4076. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee

Sec. 4077. Abilene, Texas.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Abilene, Texas

Sec. 4078. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Abilene, Texas

Sec. 4079. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.

reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation,

Sec. 4080. Port of Galveston, Texas.

conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying out a project for dredged material disposal in the vicinity of the project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas

Sec. 4081. Grand County and Moab, Utah.

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 review of the impact of current and future demands on the Spanish Valley Aquifer.

Sec. 4082. Southwestern Utah.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara River, Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties, Utah.

Sec. 4083. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, navigation, and erosion control, Chowan River basin, Virginia and North Carolina

Sec. 4084. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.

include a determination of the feasibility of reducing future damage to the seawall from seismic activity

Sec. 4085. Monongahela River Basin, northern West Virginia.

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 Hancock, 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. 4086. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin, including the extension of existing piers.

Sec. 4087. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin

Sec. 4088. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.

conduct a study of the Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin, to determine if the structure prevents ice jams on the Sheboygan River.

To Top

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels.

Manatee Harbor basin, Florida.

(2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.

(3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana.

(4) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.

(5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, Texas.

(6) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.

Sec. 5002. Watershed management.

(1) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.

(2) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee, Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.

(3) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.

(4) Amite River basin, Louisiana.

(5) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.

(6) Red River watershed, Louisiana.

(7) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.

(8) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.

(9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.

(10) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.

(11) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.

(12) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.

(13) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.

(14) Ramapo River watershed, New York.

(15) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.

(16) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers lying within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, Pennsylvania.

(17) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.

(18) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.

(19) Sauk River basin, Washington.

(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

Sec. 5003. Dam safety.

(1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.

(2) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.

(3) State Dam, Auburn, New York.

(4) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.

(5) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.

(6) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

(7) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.

(8) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

(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) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $6,000,000.

Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations.

(1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas.

(2) Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee

Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas.

`(29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;

`(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;

`(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;

`(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and

`(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.'.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- Section 212(i)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking `section--' and all that follows before the period at the end and inserting `section $20,000,000'.

Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects.

`(9) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(18);

`(10) $27,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(19);

`(11) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(20);

`(12) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(23);

`(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(25);

`(14) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(26);

`(15) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(27);

`(16) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(28); and

`(17) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(40).'.

(b) East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas- Federal assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone program of the Department of Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project described in section 219(c)(20) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-219) if such assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes

Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain projects.

(1) False River, Louisiana, being carried out under section 206 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

(2) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(3) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(4) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(5) 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).

(6) 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).

(7) North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(8) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.

(1) Project for water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas.

(2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida.

(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

(4) Project for navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas andLouisiana.

(b) Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida- In carrying out the project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to in subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project that benefits federally owned property.

Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.

The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, an assessment of the water resources needs of the river basins and watersheds of the southeastern United States.

Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.

The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials

Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi River enhancement project.

`through 2015'

Sec. 5012. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.

Expands federal participation from 50% to 100%

Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.

`through 2012'

Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary models.

`through 2012'

Sec. 5015. Great Lakes navigation.

Using available funds, the Secretary shall expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the navigation features of the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels for the purpose of supporting commercial navigation to authorized project depths.

Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project.

The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall study, design, and carry out a project for preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species through the Upper Mississippi River system.

Sec. 5017. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Sec. 5018. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program.

Authorization of Appropriations- Section 510(i) of such Act (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking `$10,000,000' and inserting `$50,000,000'.

Sec. 5019. Hypoxia assessment.

The Secretary may participate with Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional researchers, and other interested parties to assess hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico

Sec. 5020. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy evaluation and monitoring program.

The Secretary may participate in the Potomac River Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy Evaluation and Monitoring Program to identify a series of resource management indicators to accurately monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the agreed upon tributary strategies and other public policies that pertain to natural resource protection of the Potomac River watershed.

Sec. 5021. Lock and dam security.

develop standards for the security of locks and dams, including the testing and certification of vessel exclusion barriers

Sec. 5022. Rehabilitation.

The Secretary, at Federal expense and not to exceed $1,000,000, shall rehabilitate and improve the water-related infrastructure and the transportation infrastructure for the historic property in the Anacostia River Watershed located in the District of Columbia, including measures to address wet weather conditions.

Sec. 5023. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake River salmon survival.

Sec. 5024. Auburn, Alabama.

The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to water supply to the city of Auburn, Alabama. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

Sec. 5025. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.

The Secretary shall design and construct the locally preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama

Sec. 5026. Alaska.

striking `$25,000,000' and inserting `$45,000,000'

Sec. 5027. Barrow, Alaska.

a nonstructural project for coastal erosion and storm damage prevention and reduction at Barrow, Alaska, including relocation of infrastructure.

Sec. 5028. Coffman Cove, Alaska.

The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for navigation, Coffman Cove, Alaska, at a total cost of $3,000,000.

Sec. 5029. Fire Island, Alaska.

The Secretary is authorized to provide planning, design, and construction assistance to the non-Federal interest for the construction of a causeway between Point Campbell and Fire Island, Alaska

Sec. 5030. Fort Yukon, Alaska.

The Secretary shall make repairs to the dike at Fort Yukon, Alaska, so that the dike meets Corps of Engineers standards

Sec. 5031. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.

The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for navigation, Kotzebue Harbor, Kotzebue, Alaska, at total cost of $2,200,000

Sec. 5032. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.

The Secretary shall assume responsibility for the long-term maintenance and repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel.

Sec. 5033. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000

Sec. 5034. Tanana River, Alaska.

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, the removal of the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River, Alaska, near the mouth of the Chena River

Sec. 5035. Valdez, Alaska.

The Secretary is authorized to construct a small boat harbor in Valdez, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,500,000.

Sec. 5036. Whittier, Alaska.

The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for navigation at Whittier, Alaska, to construct a new boat harbor at the head of Whittier Bay and to expand the existing harbor

Sec. 5037. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.

Secretary shall consider the dredging of the mooring basin and construction of the inner harbor facilities to be general navigation features for purposes of estimating the non-Federal share.

Sec. 5038. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.

The Secretary is authorized to perform operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on the White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas

Sec. 5039. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.

The Secretary shall review the project for flood control, Des Arc, Arkansas, to determine whether bank and channel scour along the White River threaten the existing project and whether the scour is as a result of a design deficiency

Sec. 5040. 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

Sec. 5041. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation and streambank erosion in the St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, to determine if the siltation or erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood control project

Sec. 5042. Cambria, California.

Sec. 5043. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard Slough,

Pittsburg, California.

All planning, study, design, and construction on the project shall be carried out by the office of the district engineer, San Francisco, California.'.

Sec. 5044. Dana Point Harbor, California.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the causes of water quality degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, to determine if the degradation is the result of a Federal navigation project

Sec. 5045. East San Joaquin County, California.

Sec. 5046. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California.

Sec. 5047. Los Osos, California.

Sec. 5048. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.

The Secretary shall review the Kings River Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement, dated May 29, 1999, among the California Department of Fish and Game

Sec. 5049. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California.

The Secretary, in consultation and coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop a comprehensive plan for the management of water resources in the Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California

Sec. 5050. San Francisco, California.

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project for repair and removal $25,000,000

Sec. 5051. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.

Sec. 5052. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh ecosystem restoration.

The Secretary shall complete work, as expeditiously as possible, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay watershed, California, study to determine the feasibility of opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the San Pablo Bay watershed

Sec. 5053. Stockton, California.

The Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the Upper Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, California,

Sec. 5054. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,

Connecticut.

shall be known and designated as the `Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater'.

Sec. 5055. Florida Keys water quality improvements.

`$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000 may be used to provide planning, design, and construction assistance to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water treatment plant, Florida City, Florida'

Sec. 5056. 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. 5057. 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

Sec. 5058. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.

The Secretary may participate in the reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not required as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the project by the non-Federal interest

Sec. 5059. Illinois River Basin restoration.

The Secretary shall develop an Illinois river basin monitoring program to support the plan

Sec. 5060. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.

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.

Sec. 5061. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.

The Secretary shall provide assistance for a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois

Sec. 5062. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.

The Secretary may carry out a third-party review of the Promontory Point project along the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, at a cost not to exceed $450,000.

Sec. 5063. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of shoaling in the vicinity of Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, to determine if the shoaling is the result of a Federal navigation project

Sec. 5064. Calumet region, Indiana.

The Secretary shall 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

Sec. 5065. Paducah, Kentucky.

The Secretary shall complete a feasibility report for rehabilitation of the project for flood damage reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the project at a total cost of $3,000,000

Sec. 5066. Southern and eastern Kentucky.

Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense

Sec. 5067. Winchester, Kentucky.

Sec. 5068. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The Secretary shall expedite completion of a dredged material management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana

Sec. 5069. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.

The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Air Force, and may use, not to exceed $4,500,000 to assist the city of Shreveport, Louisiana, with its plan to construct a water intake facility.

Sec. 5070. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.

add West Feliciana Parish and East Baton Rouge Parish to the geographic scope of the study; and

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share the cost of the study and the non-Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the study 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 study or project, as the case may be.

Sec. 5071. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

Sec. 5072. Charlestown, Maryland.

The Secretary may carry out a project for nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration at Charlestown, Maryland

Sec. 5073. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.

develop and make available to the public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries.

Sec. 5074. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and Maryland.

The Secretary may provide technical assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program

Sec. 5075. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.

The Secretary may cooperate with Massachusetts in the management and long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged material disposal sites within the State, and is authorized to accept funds from the State to carry out such activities

Sec. 5076. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon County, Michigan

Sec. 5077. Crookston, Minnesota.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for emergency streambank protection along the Red Lake River in Crookston, Minnesota

Sec. 5078. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.

Sec. 5079. Itasca County, Minnesota.

The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction, Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County, Minnesota, irrespective of normal policy considerations

Sec. 5080. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Secretary shall convey to the city of Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all right, title, and interest of the United States to the property known as the War Department (Fort Snelling Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sec. 5081. Northeastern Minnesota.

Biwabik, Minnesota- The Secretary shall reimburse the non-Federal interest for the project for environmental infrastructure, Biwabik, Minnesota

Sec. 5082. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the general reevaluation report,

Sec. 5083. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.

Secretary shall accept any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials

Sec. 5084. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois.

the Secretary may carry out activities necessary to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River system.

Sec. 5085. St. Louis, Missouri.

Sec. 5086. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.

Sec. 5087. Atlantic Coast of New York.

Sec. 5088. College Point, New York City, New York.

the Secretary shall give priority to work in College Point, New York City, New York.

Sec. 5089. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for ecosystem restoration, Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York

Sec. 5090. Hudson River, New York.

The Secretary may participate with the State of New York, New York City, and the Hudson River Park Trust in carrying out activities to restore critical marine habitat, improve safety, and protect and rehabilitate critical infrastructure. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section

Sec. 5091. Mount Morris Dam, New York.

As part of the operation and maintenance of the Mount Morris Dam, New York, the Secretary may make improvements to the access road for the dam to provide safe access to a Federal visitor's center

Sec. 5092. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the calculations necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, permanent contract for water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina

Sec. 5093. Stanly County, North Carolina.

Sec. 5094. Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Secretary is authorized to undertake the ecosystem restoration and recreation components of the Central Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated December 1999, at a total cost of $25,000,000.

Sec. 5095. Toussaint River, Ohio.

Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated $1,800,000 to carry out this section

Sec. 5096. Eugene, Oregon.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon $20,000,000.

Sec. 5097. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.

The Secretary may treat all work carried out for emergency corrective actions to repair the embankment dam at the Fern Ridge Lake project, Oregon, as a dam safety project

Sec. 5098. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5099. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5100. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

The Secretary shall use existing water quality data to model the effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam, at different water levels, to determine its impact on water and related resources in and along the Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5101. Northeast Pennsylvania.

striking `and Monroe' and inserting `Northumberland, Union, Snyder, Luzerne, and Monroe'

Sec. 5102. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.

Sec. 5103. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-Federal interest concerning flood protection and environmental restoration for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Sec. 5104. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial

wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.

Sec. 5105. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.

conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee modifications that would be required to make the levee and associated drainage structures consistent with Federal standards

Sec. 5106. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.

The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail system at the J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee

Sec. 5107. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.

The Secretary shall design and construct the project for flood damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, Lenoir City, Loudon County, Tennessee, feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer

Sec. 5108. Tennessee River partnership.

Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000

Sec. 5109. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

The Secretary may participate with non-Federal and nonprofit entities to address issues concerning managing groundwater as a sustainable resource through the Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi

Sec. 5110. Bosque River Watershed, Texas.

The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for development of new technologies and innovative approaches for restoring, preserving, and protecting the Bosque River watershed

Sec. 5111. Dallas Floodway, Dallas Texas.

Sec. 5112. Harris County, Texas.

Sec. 5113. Onion Creek, Texas.

the Secretary shall include the costs and benefits associated with the relocation of flood-prone residences in the study area for the project in the period beginning 2 years before the date of initiation of the study and ending on the date of execution of the partnership agreement for construction of the project

Sec. 5114. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia.

Sec. 5115. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia

Sec. 5116. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation in Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington

Sec. 5117. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.

The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island (also know as `Strawberry Island') in Skamania County, Washington.

Sec. 5118. Puget Island, Washington.

The Secretary is directed to place dredged and other suitable material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, between river miles 38 to 47 in order to protect economic and environmental resources in the area from further erosion, at a Federal cost of $1,000,000

Sec. 5119. Willapa Bay, Washington.

Sec. 5120. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.

Sec. 5121. Central West Virginia.

Sec. 5122. Southern West Virginia.

Sec. 5123. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.

`(12) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA- The project for flood control, Perris, California.

`(13) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS- An element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois.

`(14) LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA- The project for flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.

`(15) BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS- A project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by section 3a of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414).

`(16) HALLS BAYOU, TEXAS- A project for flood control, Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610).'.

TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.

(a) Modification- The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $42,500,000.

(b) Treatment- Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--

(1) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: `The project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, 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, except that operation and maintenance costs of the project shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.'; and

(2) in clause (iii) by inserting after `subparagraph (B)' the following: `and the project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer'.

Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.

Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--

(1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--

(A) by striking `$69,000,000' and inserting `$71,200,000'; and

(B) by striking `$34,500,000' each place it appears and inserting `$35,600,000'; and

(2) in clause (i)--

(A) by striking `$6,000,000' and inserting `$8,200,000'; and

(B) by striking `$3,000,000' each place it appears and inserting `$4,100,000'.

Sec. 6003. Maximum costs.

(a) Maximum Cost of Projects- Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2683) is amended by inserting `and section (d)' before the period at the end.

(b) Maximum Cost of Program Authority- Section 601(c)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(C) MAXIMUM COST OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY- Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the individual project funding limits in subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in subparagraph (B).'.

Sec. 6004. Project authorization.

`(3) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION- The following project for water resources development and conservation and other purposes is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the report designated in this paragraph:

`(A) INDIAN RIVER LAGOON SOUTH, FLORIDA- The project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood damage reduction, and protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon South, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 2004, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $682,500,000.

`(B) PICAYUNE STRAND, FLORIDA- The project for environmental restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $187,665,000.

`(C) SITE 1 IMPOUNDMENT, FLORIDA- The project for environmental restoration, Site 1 Impoundment, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,420,000.'.

Sec. 6005. Credit.

Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2685) is amended--

(1) in clause (i)--

(A) by striking `or' at the end of subclause (I);

(B) by adding `or' at the end of subclause (II); and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(III) the credit is provided for work carried out before the date of the partnership agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor, as defined in an agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor providing for such credit;'; and

(2) in clause (ii)--

(A) by striking `design agreement or the project cooperation'; and

(B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: `, including in the case of credit provided under clause (i)(III) conditions relating to design and construction'.

Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance.

Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2691) 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, 2004, to carry out this subsection.'.

Sec. 6007. 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. 6008. Modified water deliveries.

(a) In General- The project, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8), as described in the General Design Memorandum and Environmental Impact Statement for Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, June 1992, is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the Revised General Reevaluation Report/Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Tamiami Trail Modifications, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, August 2005, at a total cost of $144,131,000.

(b) Use of Funds- Funds made available under section 102(f) of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-6), may be used to carry out the project modification under subsection (a).

(c) Source and Allocation of Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), Federal costs incurred for construction of the project modification under subsection (a) on or after October 1, 2004, shall be shared equally between the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.

(2) ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF FUNDS- The Secretary may accept and expend funds, without further appropriation, provided from another Federal agency or from non-Federal interests for construction of the project modification under subsection (a) or for carrying out such other work that the Secretary determines to be appropriate and consistent with authorized purposes of the modified project.

Sec. 6009. Deauthorizations.

SEC. 6009. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act:

(1) The uncompleted portions of the project for the C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized by section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), at a total cost of $147,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,900,000.

(2) The uncompleted portions of the Martin County, Florida, modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,398,000.

(3) The uncompleted portions of the East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie-Martin County, Spillway Structure S-311 modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,994,000.

Sec. 6010. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall complete the development and testing of the regional engineering model for environmental restoration as expeditiously as practicable.

(b) Usage- The Secretary shall consider using, as appropriate, the regional engineering model for environmental restoration in the development of future water resource projects, including projects developed pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680).

(c) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out subsection (a).

To Top

TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

Sec. 7001. Definitions.

Sec. 7002. Comprehensive plan.

(a) In General- The Secretary, in coordination with the Governor, shall develop a comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

(b) Integration of Plan Into Comprehensive Hurricane Protection Study- In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall integrate the plan into the analysis and design of the comprehensive hurricane protection study authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 2247).

(c) Consistency With Comprehensive Coastal Protection Master Plan- In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall ensure that the plan is consistent with the goals, analysis, and design of the comprehensive coastal protection master plan authorized and defined pursuant to Act 8 of the First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana State Legislature, 2005, including--

(1) investigation and study of the maximum effective use of the water and sediment of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers for coastal restoration purposes consistent with flood control and navigation;

(2) a schedule for the design and implementation of large-scale water and sediment reintroduction projects and an assessment of funding needs from any source; and

(3) an investigation and assessment of alterations in the operation of the Old River Control Structure, consistent with flood control and navigation purposes.

(d) Inclusions- The comprehensive plan shall include a description of--

(1) the framework of a long-term program integrated with hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, and navigation activities that provide for the comprehensive protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, estuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related land and features of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including protection of critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the effects of a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or subsidence;

(2) the means by which a new technology, or an improved technique, can be integrated into the program referred to in paragraph (1);

(3) the role of other Federal and State agencies and programs in carrying out such program;

(4) specific, measurable ecological success criteria by which success of the plan will be measured; and

(5) proposed projects in order of priority as determined by their respective potential to contribute to--

(A) creation of coastal wetlands; and

(B) flood protection of communities ranked by population density and level of protection.

(e) Considerations- In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating into the program referred to in subsection (d)(1)--

(1) any related Federal or State project being carried out on the date on which the plan is developed;

(2) any activity in the Plan; or

(3) any other project or activity identified in--

(A) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;

(B) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;

(C) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; or

(D) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled `Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana'.

(f) Reports to Congress-

(1) INITIAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.

(2) UPDATES- Not later that 5 years after the date of submission of a report under paragraph (1), and at least once every 5 years thereafter until implementation of the comprehensive plan is complete, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing an update of the plan and an assessment of the progress made in implementing the plan.

Sec. 7003. Louisiana coastal area.

(a) In General- The Secretary may carry out a program for ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.

(b) Priorities-

(1) IN GENERAL- In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to--

(A) any portion of the program identified in the report described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration feature;

(B) any Mississippi River diversion project that--

(i) will protect a major population area of the Pontchartain, Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne basins; and

(ii) will produce an environmental benefit to the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;

(C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project that--

(i) will be carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River diversion project; and

(ii) will protect a major population area;

(D) any project that will reduce storm surge and prevent or reduce the risk of loss of human life and the risk to public safety; and

(E) a project to physically modify the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet and to restore the areas affected by the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet in accordance with the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 7002(a), subject to the conditions and recommendations in a final report of the Chief of Engineers.

Sec. 7004. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force.

(a) Establishment- There is established a task force to be known as the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force (in this section referred to as the `Task Force').

(b) Membership- The Task Force shall consist of the following members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an equivalent level):

(1) The Secretary.

(2) The Secretary of the Interior.

(3) The Secretary of Commerce.

(4) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(5) The Secretary of Agriculture.

(6) The Secretary of Transportation.

(7) The Secretary of Energy.

(8) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(9) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.

(10) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor.

(11) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.

(12) A representative of the Governor's Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation.

(c) Duties- The Task Force shall make recommendations to the Secretary regarding--

(1) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities for addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;

(2) financial participation by each agency represented on the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including recommendations--

(A) that identify funds from current agency missions and budgets; and

(B) for coordinating individual agency budget requests; and

(3) the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 7002(a).

(d) Report- The Task Force shall submit to Congress a biennial report that summarizes the activities of the Task Force.

(e) Working Groups-

(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY- The Task Force may establish such working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary to assist the Task Force in carrying out this section.

(2) HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Task Force may establish a working group for the purpose of advising the Task Force of opportunities to integrate the planning, engineering, design, implementation, and performance of Corps of Engineers projects for hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and navigation in those areas in Louisiana for which a major disaster has been declared by the President as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita.

(B) EXPERTISE; REPRESENTATION- In establishing the working group under subparagraph (A), the Task Force shall ensure that the group--

(i) has expertise in coastal estuaries, diversions, coastal restoration and wetlands protection, ecosystem restoration, hurricane protection, storm damage reduction systems, navigation, and ports; and

(ii) represents the State of Louisiana and local governments in south Louisiana.

(f) Compensation- Members of the Task Force and members of a working group established by the Task Force may not receive compensation for their services as members of the Task Force or working group, as the case may be.

(g) Travel Expenses- Travel expenses incurred by members of the Task Force and members of a working group established by the Task Force, in the performance of their service on the Task Force or working group, as the case may be, shall be paid by the agency or entity that the member represents.

(h) Nonapplicability of FACA- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Task Force or any working group established by the Task Force.

Sec. 7005. Project modifications.

(a) Review- The Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal interest of the project involved, shall review each Federally-authorized water resources project in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem being carried out or completed as of the date of enactment of this Act to determine whether the project needs to be modified--

(1) under the program authorized by section 7003; or

(2) to contribute to ecosystem restoration under section 7003.

(b) Modifications- Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary may carry out the modifications described in subsection (a).

(c) Public Notice and Comment- Before completing the report required under subsection (d), the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for public notice and comment.

(d) Report-

(1) IN GENERAL- Before modifying an operation or feature of a project under subsection (b), 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 describing the modification.

(2) INCLUSION- A report describing a modification under paragraph (1) shall include such information relating to the timeline for and cost of the modification, as the Secretary determines to be relevant.

(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

Sec. 7006. Construction.

(a) Science and Technology-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall carry out a coastal Louisiana ecosystem program substantially in accordance with the Plan, at a total cost of $100,000,000.

(2) PURPOSES- The purposes of the program under paragraph (1) shall be--

(A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the physical, chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana ecosystem;

(B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and

(C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and methods to carry out this subsection.

(3) WORKING GROUPS- The Secretary may establish such working groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to assist the Secretary in carrying out this subsection.

(4) CONTRACTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS- In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with an individual or entity (including a consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana) with scientific or engineering expertise in the restoration of aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal restoration and enhancement through science and technology.

(b) Demonstration Projects-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may carry out demonstration projects substantially in accordance with the Plan and within the coastal Louisiana ecosystem for the purpose of resolving critical areas of scientific or technological uncertainty related to the implementation of the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 7002(a).

(2) MAXIMUM COST-

(A) TOTAL COST- The total cost for planning, design, and construction of all projects under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000,000.

(B) INDIVIDUAL PROJECT- The total cost of an individual project under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.

(c) Initial Projects-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary is authorized to carry out the following projects substantially in accordance with the Plan:

(A) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet environmental restoration at a total cost of $105,300,000.

(B) Small diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of $68,600,000.

(C) Barataria basin barrier shoreline restoration at a total cost of $242,600,000.

(D) Small Bayou Lafourche reintroduction at a total cost of $133,500,000.

(E) Medium diversion at Myrtle Grove with dedicated dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000.

(2) MODIFICATIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- In carrying out each project under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall carry out such modifications as may be necessary to the ecosystem restoration features identified in the Plan to address the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the areas of the project.

(B) INTEGRATION- The Secretary shall ensure that each modification under subparagraph (A) is taken into account in conducting the study of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247).

(3) CONSTRUCTION REPORTS- Before the Secretary may begin construction of any project under this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications to the project, including cost changes, to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

(4) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS- Notwithstanding section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280), the cost of a project described in paragraph (1) and any modifications to the project shall not exceed 150 percent of the cost of such project set forth in paragraph (1).

(d) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material- The Secretary, substantially in accordance with the Plan, shall implement in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem a program for the beneficial use of material dredged from federally maintained waterways at a total cost of $100,000,000.

(e) Additional Projects-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for ecosystem restoration for the Chenier Plain, Louisiana, and the following projects referred to in the Plan if the Secretary determines such projects are feasible:

(A) Land Bridge between Caillou Lake and the Gulf of Mexico at a total cost of $56,300,000.

(B) Gulf Shoreline at Point Au Fer Island at a total cost of $43,400,000.

(C) Modification of Caernarvon Diversion at a total cost of $20,700,000.

(D) Modification of Davis Pond Diversion at a total cost of $64,200,000.

(2) REPORTS- Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary shall submit feasibility reports on the projects described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

(3) CONSTRUCTION- No appropriations shall be made to construct any project under this subsection if the report under paragraph (2) has not been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

Sec. 7007. Non-Federal cost share.

a) Credit- The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study or project under this title the cost of work carried out in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem by the non-Federal interest before the date of the execution of the partnership agreement for the study or project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the study or project.

(b) Sources of Funds- The non-Federal interest may use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the construction of any project carried out under this section if such funds are authorized to be used to carry out such project.

(c) Treatment of Credit Between Projects- Any credit provided under this section toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study or project under this title may be applied toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any other study or project under this title.

(d) Periodic Monitoring-

(1) IN GENERAL- To ensure that the contributions of the non-Federal interest equal the non-Federal share of the cost of a study or project under this title during each 5-year period beginning after the date of commencement of the first study or project under this title, the Secretary shall--

(A) monitor for each study or project under this title the non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind services and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas; and

(B) manage the requirement of the non-Federal interest to provide for each such study or project cash, in-kind services and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas.

(2) OTHER MONITORING- The Secretary shall conduct monitoring separately for the study phase, construction phase, preconstruction engineering and design phase, and planning phase for each project authorized on or after date of enactment of this Act for all or any portion of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

(e) Audits- Credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas (including land value and incidental costs) provided under this section, and the cost of work provided under this section, shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.

Sec. 7008. Project justification.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision of law, in carrying out any project or activity under this title or any other provision of law to protect, conserve, and restore the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the Secretary may determine that--

(1) the project or activity is justified by the environmental benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and

(2) no further economic justification for the project or activity is required if the Secretary determines that the project or activity is cost effective.

(b) Limitation on Applicability- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any separable element of a project intended to produce benefits that are predominantly unrelated to the protection, preservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

Sec. 7009. Independent review.

The Secretary shall establish the Louisiana Water Resources Council which shall serve as the exclusive peer review panel for projects under this title as required by section 2037 of this Act.

Sec. 7010. Expedited reports.

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is justified in the completed report, proceed directly to project preconstruction engineering and design:

(1) The projects identified in the study of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2447).

(2) A project for ecosystem restoration for the Chenier Plain, Louisiana.

(3) The project for Multipurpose Operation of Houma Navigation Lock.

(4) The project for Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration.

(5) The project for Small Diversion at Convent/Blind River.

(6) The project for Amite River Diversion Canal Modification.

(7) The project for Medium Diversion at White's Ditch.

(8) The project to convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes.

(9) The projects identified in the Southwest Coastal Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction study authorized by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on December 7, 2005.

Sec. 7011. Reporting.

a) In General- Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 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 including a description of--

(1) the projects authorized and undertaken under this title;

(2) the construction status of the projects;

(3) the cost to date and the expected final cost of each project undertaken under this title; and

(4) the benefits and environmental impacts of the projects.

(b) External Review- The Secretary shall enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences under which the National Academy of Sciences shall perform and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate an external review of the demonstration program authorized by subsection 7006(b).

Sec. 7012. New Orleans and vicinity.

(a) In General- The Secretary is authorized to--

(1) raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise enhance the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the West Bank and Vicinity Project to provide the levels of protection necessary to achieve the certification required for participation in the national flood insurance program under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.);

(2) modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue drainage canals and install pumps and closure structures at or near the lakefront at Lake Pontchartrain;

(3) armor critical elements of the New Orleans hurricane and storm damage reduction system;

(4) modify the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to increase the reliability of the flood protection system for the city of New Orleans;

(5) replace or modify certain non-Federal levees in Plaquemines Parish to incorporate the levees into the New Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection Project;

(6) reinforce or replace flood walls in the existing Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the existing West Bank and Vicinity Project to improve performance of the flood and storm damage reduction systems;

(7) perform one time stormproofing of interior pump stations to ensure the operability of the stations during hurricanes, storms, and high water events;

(8) repair, replace, modify and improve non-Federal levees and associated protection measures in Terrebonne Parish; and

(9) reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New Orleans metropolitan area by restoring the surrounding wetlands through measures to begin to reverse wetland losses in areas affected by navigation, oil and gas, and other channels and through modification of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion structure or its operations.

(b) Funding Authority- Activities authorized by subsection (a) and section 7013 shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the cost-sharing requirements specified in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234).

(c) Conditions- The Secretary shall notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate if estimates for the expenditure of funds on any single project or activity identified in subsection (a) exceeds the amount specified for that project or activity in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234). No appropriation in excess of 25 percent above the amount specified for a project or activity in such Act shall be made until an increase in the level of expenditure has been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

Sec. 7013. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

(a) In General- The project for navigation, Mississippi River-Gulf outlet, authorized by the Act entitled `An Act to authorize construction of the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet', approved March 29, 1956 (70 Stat. 65), as modified by section 844 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4177), is not authorized.

(b) Plan for Closure and Restoration- The Secretary shall carry out a study and implement a project to physically modify the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet and to restore the areas affected by the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet in accordance with the plan to be developed under section 7002(a), subject to the conditions and recommendations in a final report of the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is completed not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the Interim Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Deep-Draft De-Authorization Report submitted to Congress in December 2006.

(c) Report to Congress- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 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 project described in subsection (b).

(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the costs of carrying out the study and developing the report of the Chief of Engineers required by subsection (b). Such costs shall be a Federal expense.

TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY SYSTEM

Sec. 8001. Definitions.

Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration.

Except as modified by this title, the Secretary shall undertake navigation improvements and restoration of the ecosystem for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Water System substantially in accordance with the Plan and subject to the conditions described therein.

Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements.

(a) Small Scale and Nonstructural Measures-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall--

(A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, and LaGrange Lock or other alternative locations that are economically and environmentally feasible;

(B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and

(C) conduct development and testing of an appointment scheduling system.

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- The total cost of projects authorized under this subsection shall be $235,000,000. Such costs are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

(b) New Locks-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois Waterway.

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- The total cost of projects authorized under this subsection shall be $1,795,000,000. Such costs are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

(c) Concurrence- The mitigation required for the projects authorized under subsections (a) and (b), including any acquisition of lands or interests in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with lands and interests in lands for the projects authorized under subsections (a) and (b), and physical construction required for the purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the physical construction of such projects.

Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization.

Sec. 8005. Comparable progress.

To Top

AMENDMENTS

Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar.

To Top

## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)