[House Report 111-654]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-654
======================================================================
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010
_______
September 29, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5892]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5892) 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, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources
Development Act of 2010''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem and estuary
restoration.
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 1008. Small projects for aquatic plant control.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.
Sec. 2002. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 2003. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2004. Revision of project partnership agreement.
Sec. 2005. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2006. Safety assurance review.
Sec. 2007. Funding for harbor maintenance programs.
Sec. 2008. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2009. Project modifications for improvement of environment.
Sec. 2010. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration.
Sec. 2011. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric
facilities.
Sec. 2012. Repeal.
Sec. 2013. Cost estimates for feasibility reports.
Sec. 2014. Mitigation status report.
Sec. 2015. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona.
Sec. 3003. Rio de Flag, Arizona.
Sec. 3004. Tres Rios, Arizona.
Sec. 3005. Russian River project, Sonoma County, California.
Sec. 3006. South Sacramento County streams, California.
Sec. 3007. Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado.
Sec. 3008. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Texas.
Sec. 3009. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 3010. Kissimmee River restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3011. Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3012. Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia.
Sec. 3013. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project,
Illinois.
Sec. 3014. Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.
Sec. 3015. Wood River levee system reconstruction, Madison County,
Illinois.
Sec. 3016. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 3017. Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 3018. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 3019. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3020. Montevideo, Minnesota.
Sec. 3021. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3022. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri.
Sec. 3023. Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey.
Sec. 3024. Ocean Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey.
Sec. 3025. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3026. Spring Creek, New York.
Sec. 3027. Hocking River basin, Monday Creek, Ohio.
Sec. 3028. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem
restoration, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 3029. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 3030. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 3031. Houston-Galveston navigation channels, Texas.
Sec. 3032. Project reauthorization.
Sec. 3033. Project deauthorizations.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 4001. Hollis, Alaska.
Sec. 4002. Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona.
Sec. 4003. Lower Santa Cruz River, Casa Grande, Arizona.
Sec. 4004. Maricopa County, Arizona.
Sec. 4005. Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties,
Arkansas.
Sec. 4006. Oil Trough, Arkansas.
Sec. 4007. Randolph County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4008. Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, California.
Sec. 4009. Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California.
Sec. 4010. Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California.
Sec. 4011. Lodi Lake, Lodi, California.
Sec. 4012. Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California.
Sec. 4013. Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California.
Sec. 4014. Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Sec. 4015. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.
Sec. 4016. Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California.
Sec. 4017. Sacramento Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento,
California.
Sec. 4018. San Pablo Bay, Hercules, California.
Sec. 4019. Stockton, California.
Sec. 4020. Tijuana River environmental restoration, San Diego,
California.
Sec. 4021. Tijuana River wetlands restoration, San Diego County,
California.
Sec. 4022. Ventura River, Ventura County, California.
Sec. 4023. Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California.
Sec. 4024. Fountain Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado.
Sec. 4025. Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado.
Sec. 4026. Holly Pond and Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut.
Sec. 4027. Housatonic River, New Milford, Connecticut.
Sec. 4028. Long Island Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut.
Sec. 4029. Meriden, Connecticut.
Sec. 4030. South Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut.
Sec. 4031. West River, New Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 4032. Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
Sec. 4033. Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 4034. Lake County, Florida.
Sec. 4035. Marion County, Florida.
Sec. 4036. Miami, Florida.
Sec. 4037. Oakland Park, Florida.
Sec. 4038. Riviera Beach, Florida.
Sec. 4039. South Daytona, Florida.
Sec. 4040. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 4041. Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia.
Sec. 4042. Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Sec. 4043. Study for water supply, Georgia.
Sec. 4044. Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Sec. 4045. Agat and Merizo, Guam.
Sec. 4046. Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii.
Sec. 4047. Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
Sec. 4048. Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4049. Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois.
Sec. 4050. Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois.
Sec. 4051. Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois.
Sec. 4052. Middle Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 4053. North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4054. River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago
River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4055. Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago,
Illinois.
Sec. 4056. Village of Skokie, Illinois.
Sec. 4057. Bowman Creek, South Bend, Indiana.
Sec. 4058. Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 4059. Burlington, Iowa.
Sec. 4060. Beneficial use of dredged material, Louisiana and
Mississippi.
Sec. 4061. Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4062. LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties,
Louisiana.
Sec. 4063. Ruth Canal freshwater diversion, Vermilion, Louisiana.
Sec. 4064. Anacostia River watershed, Prince George's County, Maryland.
Sec. 4065. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline study, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia.
Sec. 4066. Dredged material disposal, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland.
Sec. 4067. Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island recreation and public access,
Maryland.
Sec. 4068. Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine.
Sec. 4069. Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine.
Sec. 4070. Southern Maine/New Hampshire dredged material disposal
study, Maine and New Hampshire.
Sec. 4071. Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and
Essex Counties, Massachusetts.
Sec. 4072. Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts.
Sec. 4073. Mystic River watershed, Massachusetts.
Sec. 4074. Quequechan River, Fall River, Massachusetts.
Sec. 4075. Clinton River, Clinton Township, Michigan.
Sec. 4076. Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.
Sec. 4077. Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan.
Sec. 4078. Amory, Mississippi.
Sec. 4079. Coastal Mississippi ecosystem restoration, Mississippi.
Sec. 4080. Fulton, Mississippi.
Sec. 4081. Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 4082. Lucedale, Mississippi.
Sec. 4083. Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes County, Mississippi.
Sec. 4084. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri.
Sec. 4085. Little Blue River, Jackson County, Missouri.
Sec. 4086. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4087. Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 4088. New Hampshire.
Sec. 4089. Piscataqua River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 4090. Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New
Jersey.
Sec. 4091. Beverly, New Jersey.
Sec. 4092. Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey.
Sec. 4093. Haddon Township, New Jersey.
Sec. 4094. Rahway River watershed, New Jersey.
Sec. 4095. Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey.
Sec. 4096. Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey.
Sec. 4097. Township of Ocean, New Jersey.
Sec. 4098. Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4099. Dona Ana, New Mexico.
Sec. 4100. Hidalgo County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4101. Otero County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4102. Valencia County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4103. Glen Cove, New York.
Sec. 4104. Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York.
Sec. 4105. Kill van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island, New York.
Sec. 4106. Mariners Marsh and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York.
Sec. 4107. New York, New York.
Sec. 4108. Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York.
Sec. 4109. Queens, New York.
Sec. 4110. Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York.
Sec. 4111. Roosevelt island, East River, New York, New York.
Sec. 4112. Charlotte, North Carolina.
Sec. 4113. Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina.
Sec. 4114. Missouri River and tributaries, South and Central North
Dakota, North Dakota.
Sec. 4115. Big Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4116. Brandywine Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4117. Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio.
Sec. 4118. Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed,
Summit County, Ohio.
Sec. 4119. Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4120. Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio.
Sec. 4121. Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio.
Sec. 4122. Ohio River, Ohio.
Sec. 4123. Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
Sec. 4124. Stark County, Ohio.
Sec. 4125. Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4126. Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Sec. 4127. West Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4128. Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio.
Sec. 4129. Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon.
Sec. 4130. Oregon Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters, Oregon.
Sec. 4131. Port Orford, Oregon.
Sec. 4132. Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4133. Delaware River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4134. Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4135. Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4136. Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4137. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.
Sec. 4138. Guayama, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4139. Rincon, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4140. Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 4141. South Carolina.
Sec. 4142. James River, South Dakota.
Sec. 4143. Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee.
Sec. 4144. Brazos River, Texas.
Sec. 4145. Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs, Texas.
Sec. 4146. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Barbours Cut), Texas.
Sec. 4147. Port of Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 4148. Simsboro Aquifer, City of Bastrop, Texas.
Sec. 4149. Navasota River watershed, Grimes County, Texas.
Sec. 4150. Rio Grande basin, Texas.
Sec. 4151. Roma, Texas.
Sec. 4152. Cottonwood Heights, Utah.
Sec. 4153. Emery Town, Utah.
Sec. 4154. Big Sandy River reallocation study, Virginia and West
Virginia.
Sec. 4155. Buckroe and Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4156. Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4157. Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4158. James River watershed, Virginia.
Sec. 4159. Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.
Sec. 4160. Green River, Kent, Washington.
Sec. 4161. Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington.
Sec. 4162. Lake Michigan shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 5001. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection
program.
Sec. 5002. Saint Lawrence Seaway.
Sec. 5003. Watershed management.
Sec. 5004. Comprehensive shoreline restoration.
Sec. 5005. Northeast Coastal Region ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5006. Anacostia watershed, District of Columbia and Maryland.
Sec. 5007. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 5008. Cambridge, Maryland.
Sec. 5009. Hart-Miller Island, Maryland.
Sec. 5010. Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 5011. Sharkey County, Mississippi.
Sec. 5012. Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South
Carolina.
Sec. 5013. Sense of Congress on the promotion of General Michael J.
Walsh to Major General, United States Army.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in
the respective reports designated in this section:
(1) Mid-chesapeake bay island ecosystem restoration project,
chesapeake bay, dorchester county, maryland.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem
Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County,
Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 24,
2009, at a total cost of $1,612,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $1,045,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $567,000,000.
(2) Mississippi coastal improvements program, hancock,
harrison, and jackson counties, mississippi.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal
Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties,
Mississippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September
15, 2009, at a total cost of $1,182,600,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $746,750,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $435,850,000.
(3) West onslow beach and new river inlet (topsail beach),
pender county, north carolina.--The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet
(Topsail Beach), Pender County, North Carolina: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 2009, at a total cost of
$32,131,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,708,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,423,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $113,904,000 for periodic beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated Federal cost of $56,952,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $56,952,000.
SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible,
may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Del rosa channel, san bernadino, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Del Rosa Channel, San Bernadino,
California.
(2) Laguna creek, vacaville, california.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Laguna Creek, Vacaville, California.
(3) Ulatis creek, vacaville, california.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Ulatis Creek, Vacaville, California.
(4) Sanderson gulch, denver, colorado.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Sanderson Gulch, Denver, Colorado.
(5) Willow creek, creede, colorado.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Willow Creek, Creede, Colorado.
(6) Big econ river, orange, florida.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Big Econ River, Orange, Florida.
(7) Bay gall creek, warner robbins, georgia.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Bay Gall Creek, Warner Robbins,
Georgia.
(8) Des plaines river, park ridge, illinois.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Des Plaines River, Park Ridge,
Illinois.
(9) Kishwaukee river, dekalb, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Kishwaukee River, DeKalb, Illinois.
(10) Navajo creek, palos heights, illinois.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Navajo Creek, Palos Heights, Illinois.
(11) Stony creek, oak lawn, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois.
(12) Vicinity of the 71st street ditch, justice, illinois.--
Project for flood damage reduction, in the vicinity of the 71st
Street Ditch, Justice, Illinois.
(13) West branch of mill creek, palos park, illinois.--
Project for flood damage reduction, West Branch of Mill Creek,
Palos Park, Illinois.
(14) Dry run creek, waterloo, iowa.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Dry Run Creek, Waterloo, Iowa.
(15) Louisville, kentucky.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Louisville, Kentucky.
(16) Baltimore city, maryland.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Baltimore City, Maryland, in the vicinity of Druid
Hill Park.
(17) Pine tree brook, avon, massachusetts.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Pine Tree Brook, Avon, Massachusetts.
(18) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.
(19) Harding canal seawall, detroit, michigan.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Harding Canal Seawall, Detroit,
Michigan.
(20) Big river, high ridge, missouri.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Big River, High Ridge, Missouri.
(21) Saw mill river basin, greehburgh, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Saw Mill River basin, Greehburgh, New
York.
(22) Sparkill creek, orangetown, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York.
(23) Independence, ohio.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Independence, Ohio.
(24) Valley view, ohio.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Valley View, Ohio.
(25) Winyeh bay, georgetown, south carolina.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Winyeh Bay, Georgetown, South Carolina.
(26) Del rio, val verde, texas.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Del Rio, Val Verde, Texas.
(27) Craford bay seawall, portsmouth, virginia.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Craford Bay Seawall, Portsmouth,
Virginia.
(28) Southern branch of the elizabeth river, portsmouth,
virginia.--Project for flood damage reduction, Southern Branch
of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth, Virginia.
(29) Roxbury and westpoint townships, wisconsin.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Roxbury and Westpoint Townships,
Wisconsin.
SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible,
may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of
1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Naknek river, naknek, alaska.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Naknek River, Naknek, Alaska.
(2) Quinnipiac river, new haven, connecticut.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Quinnipiac River, New Haven,
Connecticut.
(3) Biscayne bay, north bay village, florida.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Biscayne Bay, North Bay
Village, Florida.
(4) Bronx river, new york, new york.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Bronx River, New York, New York.
(5) Ohio river, ironton, ohio.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Ohio River, Ironton, Ohio.
(6) Newport, rhode island.--Project for emergency streambank
protection, Newport, Rhode Island.
(7) Tiverton, rhode island.--Project for emergency streambank
protection, Tiverton, Rhode Island.
SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible,
may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Detroit river, wyandotte, michigan.--Project for
navigation, Detroit River, Wyandotte, Michigan.
(2) Stouts creek, lacey township, new jersey.--Project for
navigation, Stouts Creek, Lacey Township, New Jersey.
(3) Brown's river, nassau county, new york.--Project for
navigation, Brown's River, Nassau County, New York.
(4) Detroit harbor, wisconsin.--Project for navigation,
Detroit Harbor, Wisconsin.
SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
(1) Rheem creek, contra costa county, california.--Project
for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rheem Creek,
Contra Costa County, California.
(2) Rodeo creek, contra costa county, california.--Project
for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rodeo Creek,
Contra Costa County, California.
SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY
RESTORATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Emeryville harbor, emeryville, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Emeryville Harbor,
Emeryville, California.
(2) Los angeles river, cudahy, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Los Angeles River,
Cudahy, California.
(3) Laguna salada, pacifica, california.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem and estuary restoration, Laguna Salada, Pacifica,
California.
(4) Animas river, la plata, colorado.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem and estuary restoration, Animas River, La Plata,
Colorado.
(5) North fork of the gunnison river, delta, colorado.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, North
Fork of the Gunnison River, Delta, Colorado.
(6) Line and cane creeks, henry county, georgia.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Line and Cane
Creeks, Henry County, Georgia.
(7) Bremme creek, dupage, illinois.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem and estuary restoration, Bremme Creek, DuPage,
Illinois.
(8) Blackberry creek, kendall, illinois.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem and estuary restoration, Blackberry Creek, Kendall,
Illinois.
(9) Gompers park, north branch chicago river, illinois.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Gompers
Park, North Branch Chicago River, Illinois.
(10) Kankakee river, will county, illinois.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Kankakee River, Will
County, Illinois.
(11) Prairie creek watershed, will county, illinois.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Prairie Creek
Watershed, Will County, Illinois.
(12) West branch of the dupage river, dupage, illinois.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, West
Branch of the DuPage River, DuPage, Illinois.
(13) Long creek watershed, cumberland, maine.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Long Creek
Watershed, Cumberland, Maine.
(14) Cabin branch watershed, prince george's county,
maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary
restoration, Cabin Branch Watershed, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
(15) Little paint branch stream, prince george's county,
maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary
restoration, Little Paint Branch Stream, Prince George's
County, Maryland.
(16) Lower beaverdam creek, prince george's county,
maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary
restoration, Lower Beaverdam Creek, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
(17) Northeast anacostia river, prince george's county,
maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary
restoration, Northeast Anacostia River, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
(18) Northwest anacostia river, prince george's county,
maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary
restoration, Northwest Anacostia River, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
(19) Assabet river, middlesex and worcester, massachusetts.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Assabet
River, Middlesex and Worcester, Massachusetts.
(20) Lewis bay, yarmouth, massachusetts.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lewis Bay, Yarmouth,
Massachusetts.
(21) Pig's eye lake, st. paul, minnesota.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Pig's Eye Lake, St.
Paul, Minnesota.
(22) Barnegat bay, ocean county, new jersey.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Barnegat Bay, Ocean
County, New Jersey.
(23) Branchport creek, oceanport borough, new jersey.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration,
Branchport Creek, Oceanport Borough, New Jersey.
(24) Hackensack river, hudson county, new jersey.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Hackensack
River, Hudson County, New Jersey.
(25) Lake topanemus, freehold, new jersey.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lake Topanemus,
Freehold, New Jersey.
(26) Las cruces dam, dona ana, new mexico.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Las Cruces Dam, Dona
Ana, New Mexico.
(27) Pugsley creek, castle hill, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Pugsley Creek,
Castle Hill, New York.
(28) Olentangy river, franklin, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem and estuary restoration, Olentangy River, Franklin,
Ohio.
(29) Scioto river, franklin, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem and estuary restoration, Scioto River, Franklin,
Ohio.
(30) Woonasquatucket river, providence, rhode island.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration,
Woonasquatucket River, Providence, Rhode Island.
(31) Claytor lake, pulaski, virginia.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem and estuary restoration, Claytor Lake, Pulaski,
Virginia.
SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible,
may carry out the project under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores
of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C.
426g):
(1) Deerfield beach, broward county, florida.--Project for
shoreline protection, Deerfield Beach, Broward County, Florida.
(2) Barnegat, ocean county, new jersey.--Project for
shoreline protection, Barnegat, Ocean County, New Jersey.
(3) Manhasset bay, port washington, new york.--Project for
shoreline protection, Manhasset Bay, Port Washington, New York.
SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project
for aquatic nuisance plant control in the Republican River basin,
Colorado, under section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33
U.S.C. 610).
(b) Special Rule.--In carrying out the project under subsection (a),
the Secretary may control and eradicate riverine nuisance plants.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Limitation; Savings Provision.--Section 221(a)(4)(E) of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)(E)) is amended by
striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) Limitation.--In any case in which a
specific provision of law provides for a non-
Federal interest to receive credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of a study for,
or construction or operation and maintenance
of, a water resources project, the Secretary
shall apply--
``(I) the specific provision of law
instead of this paragraph; or
``(II) at the request of the non-
Federal interest, the specific
provision of law and such provisions of
this paragraph as the non-Federal
interest may request.
``(iii) Savings provision.--Nothing in this
subparagraph affects the applicability of
subsection (a)(4)(C).''.
(b) Water Resources Project Defined.--Section 221(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs
(A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by moving subparagraphs (A) and (B) (as so redesignated)
and the matter following such subparagraphs 2 ems to the right;
(3) by striking ``(b)'' and all that follows through ``The
term'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
``(1) Non-federal interest.--The term''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Water resources project.--The term `water resources
project' includes projects studied, reviewed, designed,
constructed, operated and maintained, or otherwise subject to
Federal participation under the authority of the civil works
program of the Secretary of the Army for the purposes of
navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration,
hurricane and storm damage reduction, water supply, recreation,
hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife conservation, water
quality, environmental infrastructure, resource protection and
development, and related purposes.''.
(c) Technical Correction.--Section 221(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(c)) is amended by striking ``enforcible'' and inserting
``enforceable''.
SEC. 2002. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
(a) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--Section 906(d)(1)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)(1))
is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``for damages to ecological
resources, including terrestrial and aquatic resources,
and'' after ``mitigate'';
(B) by inserting ``ecological resources and'' after
``impact on''; and
(C) by inserting ``without the implementation of
mitigation measures'' before the period; and
(2) by inserting before the last sentence the following: ``If
the Secretary determines that mitigation to in-kind conditions
is not possible, the Secretary shall identify in the report the
basis for that determination.''.
(b) Mitigation Requirements.--Section 906(d)(3)(A) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2283(d)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``, at a minimum,'' after
``complies with''.
SEC. 2003. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.
Section 2006 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33
U.S.C. 2242) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Applicability.--This section shall apply to project studies
that include--
``(1) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2215(d)); or
``(2) a detailed project report, as defined in such section
105(d) and carried out under section 107(a) of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)).''.
SEC. 2004. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
Section 2008(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33
U.S.C. 2340(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``This
subsection shall apply without regard to whether the original
partnership agreement was entered into before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this subsection.''.
SEC. 2005. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.
(a) Timing of Peer Review.--Section 2034(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Reasons for timing.--If the Chief of Engineers does not
initiate a peer review for a project study at a time described
in paragraph (2), the Chief shall make publicly available,
including on the Internet, for each of such times the reasons
for not conducting the review, and shall include the reasons in
the decision document for the project study.''.
(b) Establishment of Panels.--Section 2034(c)(4) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2343(c)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Congressional and public notification.--Upon
identification of a project study for peer review under this
section, but prior to initiation of the review by the panel of
experts, the Chief of Engineers shall--
``(A) notify the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives of
the review; and
``(B) make publicly available, including on the
Internet, information on--
``(i) the dates scheduled for beginning and
ending the review;
``(ii) the entity that has the contract for
the review; and
``(iii) the names and qualifications of the
panel of experts.''.
(c) Recommendations of Panel.--Section 2034(f) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
2343(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the
following:
``(2) Public availability and transmittal to congress.--After
receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts
under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall make available
to the public, including on the Internet, and transmit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives--
``(A) a copy of the report within 3 days of receiving
the report; and
``(B) a copy of any written response of the Chief of
Engineers on recommendations contained in the report
within 3 days of the date of the response.
``(3) Inclusion in project study.--A report on a project
study from a panel of experts under this section and the
written response of the Chief of Engineers shall be included in
the final decision document for the project study.''.
SEC. 2006. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.
Section 2035 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33
U.S.C. 2344) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act
(5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a safety assurance review conducted
under this section.''.
SEC. 2007. FUNDING FOR HARBOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Guarantee.--
(1) In general.--The total budget resources made available
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund each fiscal year
pursuant to section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund) shall be equal to the level of receipts plus
interest credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for that
fiscal year. Such amounts may be used only for harbor
maintenance programs described in section 9505(c) of such Code.
(2) Guarantee.--No funds may be appropriated for harbor
maintenance programs described in such section unless the
amount described in paragraph (1) has been provided.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Total budget resources.--The term ``total budget
resources'' means the total amount made available by
appropriations Acts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for
a fiscal year for making expenditures under section 9505(c) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(2) Level of receipts plus interest.--The term ``level of
receipts plus interest'' means the level of taxes and interest
credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under section
9505 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a fiscal year as
set forth in the President's budget baseline projection as
defined in section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) for that fiscal
year submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code.
SEC. 2008. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C.
2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318; 120 Stat.
3197; 121 Stat. 1067; 123 Stat. 3478) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``permits under the
jurisdiction'' and inserting ``permits of such entities related
to projects for a public purpose under the jurisdiction'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e);
(3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Effect on Permitting.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under
subsection (a) will not impact impartial decision-making with
respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally.
``(2) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation of
permits carried out using funds accepted under this section
shall--
``(A) be reviewed by the District Commander of the
Corps District in which the project or activity is
located, unless the evaluation of the permit is
initially conducted by the District Commander whereby
the review shall be conducted by the Commander of the
Corps Division in which the District is located; and
``(B) utilize the same procedures for decisions that
would otherwise be required for the evaluation of
permits for similar projects or activities not carried
out using funds authorized under this section.
``(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds accepted under
this section shall be used to carry out a review of the evaluation of
permits required under subsection (b)(2)(A).
``(d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that all final
permit decisions carried out using funds authorized under this section
are made available to the public, including on the Internet.''; and
(4) in subsection (e) (as redesignated), by striking ``2010''
and inserting ``2016''.
SEC. 2009. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.
Section 1135(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2309a(d)) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting
``$10,000,000''.
SEC. 2010. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY RESTORATION.
Section 206(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 2330(d)) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting
``$10,000,000''.
SEC. 2011. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 314 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2321) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES.
``Activities currently performed by personnel under the direction of
the Secretary in connection with the operation and maintenance of
navigation or hydroelectric power generating facilities, including all
personnel under the direction of the Secretary in connection with the
operation and maintenance of navigational infrastructure such as
floodgates, locks, and dams, at Corps of Engineers water resources
projects, are considered to be inherently governmental functions and
not commercial activities. This section does not prohibit contracting
out major maintenance or other functions that are currently contracted
out or studying services not directly connected with project
maintenance and operations.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents contained in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to section
314 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 314. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric
facilities.''.
SEC. 2012. REPEAL.
Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (31 U.S.C.
6505 note; 114 Stat. 2592), and the item relating to such section in
the table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act, are repealed.
SEC. 2013. COST ESTIMATES FOR FEASIBILITY REPORTS.
Section 905(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2282) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Cost estimates for feasibility reports.--In preparing a
feasibility report under this subsection, the Secretary shall
include in the report, and any budget documents (including
justification materials) submitted pursuant to section 1105(a)
of title 31, United States Code, an accounting of the total
cost of the recommended plan and an estimate of the Federal and
non-Federal participation in the plan based on the following
scenarios:
``(A) The cost of the project based on optimal levels
of Federal funding for the recommended plan.
``(B) The estimated cost of the project, based on a
50 percent increase in the period for implementation of
the recommended plan.
``(C) The estimated cost of the project, based on a
100 percent increase in the period for implementation
of the recommended plan.''.
SEC. 2014. MITIGATION STATUS REPORT.
Section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33
U.S.C. 2283a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Information included.--In reporting the status of all
projects included in the report, the Secretary shall--
``(A) use a uniform methodology for determining the
status of all projects included in the report;
``(B) use a methodology that describes both a
qualitative and quantitative status for all projects in
the report; and
``(C) provide specific dates for and participants in
the consultations required under section 906(d)(4)(B)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2283(d)(4)(B)).''.
SEC. 2015. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS.
(a) Restriction.--None of the funds authorized or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for a project unless all of the iron,
steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the
United States.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or
category of cases in which the Secretary finds that--
(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the
public interest;
(2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not
produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably
available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or
(3) inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced
in the United States will increase the cost of the overall
project by more than 25 percent.
(c) Public Notice of Waiver Request.--If the Secretary receives a
request to waive the application of subsection (a), the Secretary shall
publish in a timely manner that request online and in the Federal
Register.
(d) Justification for Waiver.--If the Secretary determines that it is
necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall publish online and in the
Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the
provision is being waived.
(e) Application.--This section shall be applied in a manner
consistent with United States obligations under international
agreements.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 3001. DOUGLAS HARBOR, JUNEAU, ALASKA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for navigation, Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska, being carried
out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577), shall be $7,000,000.
SEC. 3002. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, ARIZONA.
The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona,
authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 303 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), section 302 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2600), and section
3008 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1107),
is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project
at a total cost of $55,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$50,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,400,000.
SEC. 3003. RIO DE FLAG, ARIZONA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff,
Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576) and modified by section 3007
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1107), is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at
a total cost of $77,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$50,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $27,000,000.
SEC. 3004. TRES RIOS, ARIZONA.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, authorized
by section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
the project at a total cost of $230,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $149,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $80,500,000.
SEC. 3005. RUSSIAN RIVER PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, water conservation, and related
purposes in the Russian River basin, California, authorized by section
204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 177), and the project
for Russian River, Dry Creek, California, authorized by section 203 of
the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1192), are modified as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall review the biological opinion on the
water supply, flood control, and channel maintenance operations
conducted by the Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water
Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control
District, as transmitted by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration on September 24, 2008.
(2) If the Secretary determines that the project is feasible,
the Secretary is authorized to construct the project at a total
cost of $92,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$59,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $32,200,000.
SEC. 3006. SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, environmental restoration, and
recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California, authorized by
section 101(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project at a total cost of $104,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $67,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,800,000.
SEC. 3007. CHATFIELD RESERVOIR, COLORADO.
Section 116 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2009 (123 Stat. 608) is amended by striking
``Colorado Department of Natural Resources is authorized'' and
inserting ``Colorado Department of Natural Resources, or its assignee,
is authorized''.
SEC. 3008. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEW
MEXICO, AND TEXAS.
Section 5056(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121
Stat. 1213) is amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2015''.
SEC. 3009. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The project for flood control, Potomac River, Washington, District of
Columbia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter
688; 49 Stat. 1574) and modified by section 301(a)(4) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707) and section 309 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is further
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a
Federal cost of $8,100,000, in accordance with the post authorization
change report dated June 29, 1998.
SEC. 3010. KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION, FLORIDA.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Kissimmee River Restoration,
Florida, authorized by section 101(8) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $852,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $426,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $426,000,000.
SEC. 3011. PONCE DE LEON INLET, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation and related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet,
Volusia County, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(8) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$15,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,500,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $6,500,000.
SEC. 3012. SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GEORGIA.
The project for navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia,
authorized by section 101(b)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project at a total cost of $675,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $405,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $270,000,000.
SEC. 3013. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS PROJECT,
ILLINOIS.
(a) Authorization.--Section 3061(b)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1121) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I in its
current location or at an alternative location, as
determined appropriate by the Secretary;'';
(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``June 14, 2005'' and
inserting ``November 21, 2003, as amended on July 14, 2005'';
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (D), (E) and (F), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) acquire real estate interests necessary for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of Barrier I
and Barrier II;'';
(5) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E) (as
redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection);
(6) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) (as
redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) and inserting
``; and''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) construct additional barriers or other fish
deterrents at other locations in the vicinity of the
Chicago Area Waterway System, if determined appropriate
by the Secretary.''.
(b) Use of Credit.--Section 3061(b)(2) of such Act (121 Stat. 1121)
is amended by striking ``paragraph (1)(E)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(F)''.
(c) Feasibility Study.--Section 3061(d) of such Act (121 Stat. 1121)
is amended by adding the end the following: ``The study shall include a
fully developed analysis of an alternative for hydrologic separation
between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins. The
hydrologic separation alternative shall include identification of
measures to prevent the transfer of aquatic nuisance species between
the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins through surface
water.''.
SEC. 3014. LOWER OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS AND KENTUCKY.
The project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 and
53, Illinois and Kentucky, authorized by section 3(a)(6) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$1,991,000,000.
SEC. 3015. WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.
The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River Levee System
Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois, authorized by section
1001(20) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat.
1053), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project
at a total cost of $120,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$78,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $42,000,000.
SEC. 3016. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4115) and modified by section 127 of the Energy and
Water Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), is further modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$275,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $206,000,000, and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $69,000,000.
SEC. 3017. RHODES POINT JETTY, SMITH ISLAND, MARYLAND.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for navigation, Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland,
being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $7,000,000.
SEC. 3018. MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
Section 522 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2656) is amended by striking ``draft evaluation report of the New
England District Engineer entitled `Phase I Muddy River Master Plan',
dated June 2000'' and inserting ``Final Decision Document and
Environmental Assessment Report of the New England District Engineer
entitled `Muddy River Flood Control and Ecosystem Restoration, Boston
and Brookline, Massachusetts', dated September 2003, at a total cost of
$79,200,000''.
SEC. 3019. ADA, MINNESOTA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota,
being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $10,600,000.
SEC. 3020. MONTEVIDEO, MINNESOTA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for flood damage reduction, Montevideo, Minnesota, being
carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33
U.S.C. 701s), shall be $10,000,000.
SEC. 3021. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.
Section 3101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121
Stat. 1133) is amended by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting
``$14,000,000''.
SEC. 3022. BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.
The project for flood control, Blue River basin, Kansas City,
Missouri, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $45,500,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $34,125,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $11,375,000.
SEC. 3023. LOWER ASSUNPINK CREEK, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Lower
Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey, being carried out under section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a),
shall be $10,000,000.
SEC. 3024. OCEAN GATE, OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for emergency streambank protection, Ocean Gate, Ocean County,
New Jersey, being carried out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act
of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), shall be $4,500,000.
SEC. 3025. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3781), as amended by section 3122 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1139), is further amended by striking
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$27,000,000''.
SEC. 3026. SPRING CREEK, NEW YORK.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Spring
Creek, New York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be
$6,000,000.
SEC. 3027. HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OHIO.
Section 1001(37)(B)(iii) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (121 Stat. 1055) is amended by striking ``$1,270,000'' and
inserting ``$12,000,000''.
SEC. 3028. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AND TILLAMOOK BAY ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.
Section 536(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2662) is amended by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting
``$45,000,000''.
SEC. 3029. CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.
The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi
Ship Channel, Texas, authorized by section 1001(40) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1056) is modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$447,604,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $183,827,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $263,777,000.
SEC. 3030. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.
The project for flood control, Trinity River and tributaries, Texas,
authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the
construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 2, 1945,
and modified by section 5141 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (121 Stat. 1253), is further modified to authorize the Secretary
to construct the project at a total cost of $882,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $573,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $308,700,000.
SEC. 3031. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TEXAS.
The project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-
Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the boundaries of the
Galveston channel approximately 2600 feet beyond Pier 38, if the
Secretary determines that the extension is feasible.
SEC. 3032. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATION.
The following project may be carried out by the Secretary and no
construction on any such project may be initiated until the Secretary
determines that the project is feasible: The Vincennes, Indiana portion
of the project for flood control, Wabash River basin, Illinois and
Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60
Stat. 649) and deauthorized by section 1002 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4209).
SEC. 3033. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized after the
date of enactment of this Act:
(1) Potomac river, washington channel, district of
columbia.--The portion of the project for navigation, Potomac
River, Washington Channel, District of Columbia, authorized by
the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 Stat. 1028),
beginning at Washington Harbor Channel Geometry Centerline of
the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship channel, Centerline
Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 441,948.20, East
1,303,969.30, as stated and depicted on the Condition Survey
Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and Magazine Bar Shoal
Channels, Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 of 6, prepared by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district, July
2007; thence departing the aforementioned centerline traveling
the following courses and distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes
45 seconds E., 200.00 feet to a point, on the outline of said
400-foot-wide channel thence binding on said outline the
following three courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 49 minutes
15 seconds E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 degrees
44 minutes 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S.
11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point,
thence; S. 78 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to
a point binding on the centerline of the 400-foot-wide main
navigational channel at computed Centerline Station No.
65+54.31, coordinates North 438,923.9874, East 1,306,159.9738,
thence; continuing with the aforementioned centerline the
following courses and distances: N. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04
seconds W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline Station No.
68+85.10, thence; N. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds W.,
2,015.56 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 89+00.67,
thence; N. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds W., 1,472.26 feet
to the point of beginning.
(2) Chicago harbor, illinois.--The portion of the project for
navigation, Chicago Harbor, authorized by the River and Harbor
Acts of March 3, 1899 and March 2, 1919, beginning at the
southwest corner of Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago sluice gate that abuts the north wall of the Chicago
River Lock thence running north for approximately 290 feet,
thence running east approximately 1,000 feet, thence running
south approximately 290 feet, thence running west approximately
1,000 feet to the point of origin.
(3) Ipswich river, massachusetts.--The portion of the project
for navigation, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, adopted by the
Rivers and Harbors Act of August 5, 1886, consisting of a 4-
foot channel located at the entrance to the inner harbor at
Ipswich Harbor, lying northwesterly of a line commencing at:
N3,074,938.09, E837,154.87, thence running easterly
approximately 60 feet to a point with coordinates
N3,074,972.62, E837,203.93.
(4) Menemsha creek, massachusetts.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Menemsha Creek, Massachusetts,
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1945, consisting of
the following areas--
(A) beginning at a point, N129,112.54, E1,566,926.30,
running north 52 degrees 12 minutes 55.9 seconds east
208.68 feet to a point N129,240.39, E1,567,091.22,
running south 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds east
170.0 feet to a point N129,203.51, E1,567,257.17,
running south 37 degrees 25 minutes 45.4 seconds east
101.04 feet to a point N129,123.28, E1,567,318.58,
running north 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds west
223.32 feet to a point N129,171.72, E 1,567,100.58,
running south 52 degrees 12 minutes 55.9 seconds west
174.00 feet to a point N129,065.12, E1,566,963.06,
running north 37 degrees 47 minutes 04.1 seconds west
60.00 feet to the point of origin, and
(B) beginning at a point, N128,895.78, E1,566,940.39,
thence running north 52 degrees 31 minutes 25.8 seconds
east 135.91 feet to a point N128,978.47, E1,567,048.25,
thence running south 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds
east 80.63 feet to a point N128,960.98, E1,567,126.96,
thence running south 37 degrees 25 minutes 32.9 seconds
east 70.67 feet to a point N128,904.86, E1,567,169.91,
thence running north 73 degrees 59 minutes 15.6 seconds
west 139.90 feet to a point N128,943.45, E
1,567,035.44, thence running south 52 degrees 31
minutes 25.8 seconds west 103.96 feet to a point
N128,880.20, E1,566,952.94, thence running north 38
degrees 50 minutes 43.8 seconds west 20.01 feet to the
point of origin.
(5) Block island harbor of refuge, rhode island.--The portion
of the project for navigation, Block Island Harbor of Refuge,
Rhode Island, adopted by the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 11,
1870, consisting of the cut-stone breakwater lining the west
side of the Inner Basin, beginning at a point, N32,179.55,
E312,625.53, thence running northerly approximately 76.59 feet
to a point with coordinates N326,655.92, E312,631.32, thence
running northerly approximately 206.81 feet to a point with
coordinates N32,858.33, E312,673.74, thence running easterly
approximately 109.00 feet to a point with coordinates
N32,832.15, E312,779.54.
(b) Additional Deauthorizations.--The following projects are not
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except with respect
to any portion of such a project that has been completed before such
date or is under construction on such date:
(1) The project for flood protection and related purposes,
Cache River basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section
204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172).
(2) The Lower White River, Big Creek and tributaries,
Arkansas, element of the project for flood control and
improvement of the Lower Mississippi River, authorized by
section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), and
modified by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79
Stat. 1076).
(3) The project for navigation, Noyo River and Harbor,
California, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176) and modified by section 146 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2931).
(4) The project for navigation, Red River Waterway,
Shreveport, Louisiana, to Dangerfield, Texas, authorized by the
River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
(5) The project for flood control, Hocking River at Logan,
Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4122).
(6) The Shipyard River Upper Channel and Upper Turning basin
elements of the project for navigation, Charleston Harbor,
South Carolina, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4096).
(7) The environmental enhancements element of the project for
flood control, Nonconnah Creek and Johns Creek, Tennessee and
Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124).
(8) The recreation element of the project for flood control,
Nonconnah Creek and Johns Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124).
(9) The project for flood protection, Santa Barbara County
Coastal Streams and tributaries in the area of Goleta,
California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826) and modified by section 102(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4804).
(10) The project for flood control, Harris Fork Creek,
Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921).
(11) The project for flood control, Buena Vista, Virginia,
authorized by section 101(a)(24) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610) and modified by
section 118(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4824).
TITLE IV--STUDIES
SEC. 4001. HOLLIS, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements, Hollis, Alaska.
SEC. 4002. BULLARD WASH, GOODYEAR, ARIZONA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Bullard Wash,
Goodyear, Arizona.
SEC. 4003. LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water
resource purposes for the Lower Santa Cruz River study area, Casa
Grande, Arizona.
SEC. 4004. MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, recreation, and related water resource purposes, including
nonstructural solutions, for Maricopa County, Arizona.
SEC. 4005. OUACHITA RIVER, OUACHITA, UNION, AND ASHLEY COUNTIES,
ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation, flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration, bank stabilization, and related water
resource purposes for the Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley
Counties, Arkansas.
SEC. 4006. OIL TROUGH, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Oil Trough,
Arkansas.
SEC. 4007. RANDOLPH COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Randolph County,
Arkansas.
SEC. 4008. BERKELEY MARINA, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements for Berkeley
Marina, Berkeley, California.
SEC. 4009. CHELSEA WETLANDS, HERCULES, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and flood damage
reduction for Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California.
SEC. 4010. COLORADO LAGOON AND ALAMITOS BAY, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration between Colorado
Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California.
SEC. 4011. LODI LAKE, LODI, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and streambank
stabilization for Lodi Lake, Lodi, California.
SEC. 4012. OAKLAND-INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation improvements for the Oakland-
Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California.
SEC. 4013. NOYO HARBOR DISTRICT, NOYO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge
material disposal for Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California.
SEC. 4014. PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements, flood damage
reduction, shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and related
water resource purposes for Port of San Francisco, San Francisco,
California.
SEC. 4015. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge
material disposal for Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.
SEC. 4016. RIALTO CHANNEL AND CACTUS CHANNEL, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for
Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California.
SEC. 4017. SACRAMENTO REGIONAL SANITATION DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction in the Sacramento
Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento, California.
SEC. 4018. SAN PABLO BAY, HERCULES, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements for San Pablo Bay,
Hercules, California.
SEC. 4019. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for navigation channel deepening for Stockton,
California.
SEC. 4020. TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, water supply, water quality, recreation, and other water-
related issues including the impacts of water flows from Mexico for the
Tijuana River basin, San Diego, California.
SEC. 4021. TIJUANA RIVER WETLANDS RESTORATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and wetland
restoration along the Tijuana River, San Diego County, California.
SEC. 4022. VENTURA RIVER, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Ventura River,
Ventura County, California.
SEC. 4023. WILLOWBROOK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for
Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California.
SEC. 4024. FOUNTAIN CREEK WATERSHED, PUEBLO, COLORADO.
The Secretary shall conduct a sediment impact analysis study to
determine the sediment transport parameters for Fountain Creek
watershed, Pueblo, Colorado.
SEC. 4025. RALSTON CREEK, ARVADA, COLORADO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for
Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado.
SEC. 4026. HOLLY POND AND NOROTAN RIVER, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for environmental restoration for Holly Pond and
Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut.
SEC. 4027. HOUSATONIC RIVER, NEW MILFORD, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along the Housatonic
River, New Milford, Connecticut.
SEC. 4028. LONG ISLAND SOUND AND MILL RIVER, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements for Long Island
Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut.
SEC. 4029. MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for
Meriden, Connecticut.
SEC. 4030. SOUTH COVE, OLD SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for the South
Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut.
SEC. 4031. WEST RIVER, NEW HAVEN HARBOR, WEST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for shoreline protection, storm damage
reduction, including a review of bulkhead condition for West River, New
Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut.
SEC. 4032. CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for enhanced public access and recreational
opportunities on Army Corps of Engineers projects in the Chesapeake
Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
SEC. 4033. WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, including green
technologies, for Washington, District of Columbia.
SEC. 4034. LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental
protection, Lake County, Florida.
SEC. 4035. MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, Marion County, Florida.
SEC. 4036. MIAMI, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Miami, Florida.
SEC. 4037. OAKLAND PARK, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Oakland Park,
Florida.
SEC. 4038. RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and
shoreline protection for Riviera Beach, Florida.
SEC. 4039. SOUTH DAYTONA, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, and related water resource purposes for South Daytona,
Florida.
SEC. 4040. TAMPA, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration for Tampa, Florida.
SEC. 4041. PEAVINE CREEK, DECATUR, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration, recreation, and related water resource purposes for
Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia.
SEC. 4042. RICHLAND CREEK, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Richland
Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.
SEC. 4043. STUDY FOR WATER SUPPLY, GEORGIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of municipal and
industrial water supply for the State of Georgia.
(b) Study Components.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall
review--
(1) currently available water supplies;
(2) expected future demand for potable water;
(3) current water uses, including per capita use rates;
(4) opportunities to augment existing supplies, including
through increased conservation and improved efficiencies;
(5) the effect of water supply policies and uses on the
environment;
(6) the effect of water supply policies on the economy;
(7) the effect of water supply policies and uses on upstream
and downstream uses;
(8) the impacts of water supply policies on threatened and
endangered species; and
(9) the impacts of consumptive uses on instream uses.
(c) Timing.--The Secretary shall complete the study not later than 2
years following the first obligation of funds for the study.
SEC. 4044. SUWANNEE CREEK, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Suwannee
Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.
SEC. 4045. AGAT AND MERIZO, GUAM.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
protection for Agat and Merizo, Guam.
SEC. 4046. WAIAKEA STREAM AND PALAI STREAM, HILO, HAWAII.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along
Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii.
(b) Prior Work.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall
utilize, to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the
formulation of a project for flood damage reduction, Waiakea Stream and
Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii, initiated under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
SEC. 4047. WAIALUA-KAIAKA WATERSHED, OAHU, HAWAII.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, water supply, and related water resource purposes for the
Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
SEC. 4048. ALBANY PARK, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Albany Park,
Chicago, Illinois.
SEC. 4049. CARPENTER CREEK, CARPENTERSVILLE, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank
stabilization for Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois.
SEC. 4050. DES PLAINES RIVER, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank
stabilization for the Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois.
SEC. 4051. FERSON-OTTER CREEK DAM, ST. CHARLES, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank
stabilization for Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois.
SEC. 4052. MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
developing a program for environmental restoration for the Middle
Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri.
SEC. 4053. NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and related water
resource purposes for the North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago,
Illinois.
SEC. 4054. RIVER PARK AND RONAN PARK, NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO
RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and shoreline
protection for River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago
River, Chicago, Illinois.
SEC. 4055. THILLENS PARK, NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, and shoreline protection for Thillens Park, North Branch
of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
SEC. 4056. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Village of
Skokie, Illinois.
SEC. 4057. BOWMAN CREEK, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Bowman Creek,
South Bend, Indiana.
SEC. 4058. LAKE MICHIGAN WATERSHED, INDIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, and related water
resource purposes for the Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana.
SEC. 4059. BURLINGTON, IOWA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank
stabilization for Burlington, Iowa.
SEC. 4060. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL, LOUISIANA AND
MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
utilizing the Federal hopper dredge Wheeler, as part of routine testing
and use under its ready reserve status pursuant to section 3 of the Act
of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622(c); 110 Stat. 3705), for support of
projects for the beneficial reuse of material dredged from federally
maintained waterways at the following locations:
(1) Projects in connection with the comprehensive plan for
protecting, preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem, pursuant to section 7002 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1270).
(2) Projects in connection with the project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal Improvements
Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi,
authorized by section 1001 of this Act.
SEC. 4061. JESUIT BEND, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for
Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
(b) Use of Local Report.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary
may include elements of the report prepared by the non-Federal interest
for Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, if the Secretary
determines that such elements are feasible.
SEC. 4062. LABRANCHE WETLANDS, ST. CHARLES AND ST. JOHN COUNTIES,
LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for flood control and improvement
of the Lower Mississippi River, Bonnet Carre Spillway, authorized by
section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), to add
environmental restoration as a project purpose.
(b) Review.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall review
operational and structural changes to the project to restore the
LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties, Louisiana.
SEC. 4063. RUTH CANAL FRESHWATER DIVERSION, VERMILION, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for the
improvement of Bayou Teche and the Vermilion River, Louisiana,
authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55
Stat. 641), and the project for flood protection in the Teche-Vermilion
basins, Louisiana, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act
of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420), to determine the feasibility of carrying out a
project for environmental restoration and water supply, Ruth Canal,
Vermilion, Louisiana.
SEC. 4064. ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Anacostia
River watershed, Prince George's County, Maryland.
SEC. 4065. CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE STUDY, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND
VIRGINIA.
In carrying out the study for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, being carried out under the Committee
Resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
United States Senate, adopted May 23, 2001, the Secretary shall
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects on federally owned
property for shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and
improvement of water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.
SEC. 4066. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, BALTIMORE HARBOR, MARYLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredged
material disposal at Cox Creek Dredged Material Disposal Site for
Baltimore Harbor, Maryland.
SEC. 4067. MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS,
MARYLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
modifying the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project for enhanced public
access and recreational opportunities on Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island,
Maryland, as authorized by section 1001 of this Act.
SEC. 4068. CAPISIC BROOK, PORTLAND, MAINE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for environmental restoration, flood damage
reduction, and stormwater management for Capisic Brook, Portland,
Maine.
SEC. 4069. FISHING AND GOOSEBERRY ISLANDS, KITTERY, MAINE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline
protection for Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine.
SEC. 4070. SOUTHERN MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
STUDY, MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge
material disposal for southern Maine and New Hampshire.
SEC. 4071. ASSABET, CHARLES, AND SUDBURY WATERSHEDS, MIDDLESEX AND
ESSEX COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource
purposes, Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and Essex
Counties, Massachusetts.
SEC. 4072. HOOSIC RIVER WATERSHED, NORTH ADAMS, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource
purposes for Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts.
SEC. 4073. MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for the Mystic
River watershed, Massachusetts.
SEC. 4074. QUEQUECHAN RIVER, FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, recreation, and
related water resource purposes for the Quequechan River, Fall River,
Massachusetts.
SEC. 4075. CLINTON RIVER, CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, and related water resource purposes for Clinton River,
Clinton Township, Michigan.
SEC. 4076. HAMILTON DAM, FLINT, MICHIGAN.
In carrying out the review under the authority of section 216 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) of the project for flood
control, Flint River, Michigan, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311), the Secretary shall include a
review of Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.
SEC. 4077. UPPER PENINSULA FLOOD RECOVERY, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water
resource purposes for Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan.
SEC. 4078. AMORY, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Amory,
Mississippi.
SEC. 4079. COASTAL MISSISSIPPI ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for environmental restoration and related water
resource purposes for coastal Mississippi.
SEC. 4080. FULTON, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Fulton,
Mississippi.
SEC. 4081. GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements, Gulfport,
Mississippi.
SEC. 4082. LUCEDALE, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, water supply,
recreation, and related water resource purposes for Lucedale,
Mississippi.
SEC. 4083. MAGBY CREEK AND VERNON BRANCH, LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Magby Creek and
Vernon Branch in Lowndes County, Mississippi.
SEC. 4084. BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
modifying the project for flood protection and other purposes in the
Blue River basin, vicinity of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas,
authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (80 Stat.
1409), to include additional flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, and recreational measures, Kansas City, Missouri.
SEC. 4085. LITTLE BLUE RIVER, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for stream bank stabilization for Little Blue
River, Jackson County, Missouri.
SEC. 4086. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, especially examining
the floodwall pump station, for St. Louis, Missouri.
SEC. 4087. LAS VEGAS WASH, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Las Vegas Wash,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
SEC. 4088. NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary, in collaboration with all relevant Federal and non-
Federal entities, including State and local governments, nonprofit
organizations, academia, and the general public, shall conduct a
comprehensive watershed study of all watersheds in New Hampshire for
water quality, habitat degradation, environmental restoration, water
supply, and potential impacts of climate change for New Hampshire.
SEC. 4089. PISCATAQUA RIVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate sediment and
nutrient pollution in the Piscataqua River system to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and
water quality for the Piscataqua River, New Hampshire.
SEC. 4090. BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED, OCEAN AND MONMOUTH COUNTIES, NEW
JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage
reduction, shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and related
water resource purposes for Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth
Counties, New Jersey.
SEC. 4091. BEVERLY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for shoreline protection, including
consideration of a gabion wall, for Beverly, New Jersey.
SEC. 4092. BOROUGH OF PINE BEACH, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for shoreline protection, including
consideration of floating wave attenuators off shore, for Borough of
Pine Beach, New Jersey.
SEC. 4093. HADDON TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Haddon Township,
New Jersey.
SEC. 4094. RAHWAY RIVER WATERSHED, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource
purposes for Rahway River watershed, New Jersey.
SEC. 4095. THIRD RIVER, BELLEVILLE, BLOOMFIELD, AND NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction for Third River,
Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey.
SEC. 4096. PASSAIC RIVER CHANNEL, NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation, environmental restoration, and
recreation for the Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey.
SEC. 4097. TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
protection for the Township of Ocean, New Jersey.
SEC. 4098. PREAKNESS BROOK, WAYNE, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Preakness Brook,
Wayne, New Jersey.
SEC. 4099. DONA ANA, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
adding hydropower to existing irrigation canals for Dona Ana, New
Mexico.
SEC. 4100. HIDALGO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Hidalgo County,
New Mexico.
SEC. 4101. OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Otero County, New
Mexico.
SEC. 4102. VALENCIA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Valencia County,
New Mexico.
SEC. 4103. GLEN COVE, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and environmental
restoration for Glen Cove, New York.
SEC. 4104. HAWTREE BASIN, HAMILTON BEACH, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction, shoreline protection,
and environmental restoration for Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New
York.
SEC. 4105. KILL VAN KULL, PORT RICHMOND, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction, shoreline protection,
and environmental restoration for Kill Van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten
Island, New York.
SEC. 4106. MARINERS MARSH AND ARLINGTON MARSH, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Mariners Marsh
and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York.
SEC. 4107. NEW YORK, NEW YORK.
(a) Inventory and Assessment of Bulkheads and Seawalls.--
(1) Inventory.--The Secretary shall conduct an inventory of
bulkheads and seawalls constructed around the city of New York,
New York, including the boroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx,
Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens.
(2) Assessment of rehabilitation needs.--In conducting the
inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
assess the condition of the bulkheads and seawalls and the need
for rehabilitation or modification of the bulkheads and
seawalls.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a
report containing the inventory and assessment required by subsection
(a).
(c) Interim Actions.--If the Secretary determines that a bulkhead or
seawall referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and
substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out measures
to prevent or mitigate that risk.
(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of assistance
provided under this section shall be 65 percent.
(e) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall
coordinate with the appropriate officials of the city of New York and
the State of New York.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
SEC. 4108. NORTON BASIN INLET, FAR ROCKAWAY, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline
protection for Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York.
SEC. 4109. QUEENS, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
protection, Queens, New York, between 116th and 156th Streets.
SEC. 4110. ROCKAWAY BEACH SEAWALL, ROCKAWAY, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline
protection for Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York.
SEC. 4111. ROOSEVELT ISLAND, EAST RIVER, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and shoreline
protection for Roosevelt Island, East River, New York, New York.
SEC. 4112. CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for environmental restoration in support of the
Surface Water Improvement and Management Initiative for Charlotte,
North Carolina.
SEC. 4113. NANTAHALA RIVER, SWAIN, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, recreation, and
related water resource purposes, Nantahala River, Swain, North
Carolina.
SEC. 4114. MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, SOUTH AND CENTRAL NORTH
DAKOTA, NORTH DAKOTA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Missouri
River and tributaries, South and Central North Dakota, North Dakota.
SEC. 4115. BIG CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and
environmental restoration for Big Creek watershed, Ohio.
SEC. 4116. BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage
reduction and environmental restoration for Brandywine Creek watershed,
Ohio.
SEC. 4117. CARLISLE TOWNSHIP, LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Carlisle
Township, Lorain County, Ohio.
SEC. 4118. CUYAHOGA RIVER WATERSHED AND TUSCARAWAS RIVER WATERSHED,
SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource
purposes, Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed,
Summit County, Ohio.
SEC. 4119. EUCLID CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and
environmental restoration for Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio.
SEC. 4120. HEALY CREEK, BRUNSWICK, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, streambank
erosion, and sedimentation control for Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio.
SEC. 4121. LOWER MAUMEE RIVER, TOLEDO, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Lower Maumee
River, Toledo, Ohio.
SEC. 4122. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.
Section 4070 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121
Stat. 1183) is amended by striking ``Ohio River'' and inserting ``Ohio
River and tributaries''.
SEC. 4123. SHAKER LAKES, SHAKER HEIGHTS AND CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Shaker Lakes,
Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
SEC. 4124. STARK COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration for Stark County, Ohio.
SEC. 4125. TINKERS CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and
environmental restoration for Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio.
SEC. 4126. UPPER TUSCARAWAS RIVER, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Upper
Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
SEC. 4127. WEST CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and
environmental restoration for West Creek watershed, Ohio.
SEC. 4128. YELLOW CREEK AND SHORT CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration for Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio.
SEC. 4129. FERRY CREEK RESERVOIR, BROOKINGS, OREGON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Ferry Creek
Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon.
SEC. 4130. OREGON NAVIGATION JETTIES AND BREAKWATERS, OREGON.
(a) Inventory and Assessment of Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters.--
(1) Inventory.--The Secretary shall conduct an inventory of
federally constructed navigation jetties and breakwaters in the
State of Oregon.
(2) Assessment of rehabilitation needs.--In conducting the
inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
assess the condition of the navigation jetties and breakwaters
and the need for rehabilitation or modification of the jetties
and breakwaters.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a
report containing the inventory and assessment required by subsection
(a).
(c) Interim Actions.--If the Secretary determines that a jetty or
breakwater referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and
substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out measures
to prevent or mitigate that risk.
(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of assistance
provided under this section shall be 65 percent.
(e) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall
coordinate with the appropriate officials of the State of Oregon.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
SEC. 4131. PORT ORFORD, OREGON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigational improvements with examination
of navigational breakwaters for Port Orford, Oregon.
SEC. 4132. BUHL LAKE, SHARON, PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a multipurpose project for flood damage
reduction and environmental restoration for Buhl Lake, Sharon,
Pennsylvania.
(b) Prior Work.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall
utilize, to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the
formulation of a project for environmental restoration, Buhl Lake,
Sharon, Pennsylvania, initiated under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679).
SEC. 4133. DELAWARE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage
reduction and environmental restoration for the Delaware River and
tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 4134. ELK CREEK, MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and water quality
for Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 4135. MILL CREEK, ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, focusing on the Mill
Creek Drift Catcher, for Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 4136. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for the
Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 4137. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
Section 4077 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121
Stat. 1184) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Mahoning River basin,
Pennsylvania'' and inserting ``Mahoning River basin,
Pennsylvania, the Monongahela River basin, Pennsylvania''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Shaler Township'' and
inserting ``Shaler Township, Hampton Township, Harmar
Township''.
SEC. 4138. GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction for
Guayama, Puerto Rico.
SEC. 4139. RINCON, PUERTO RICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and shoreline
protection for the Municipality of Rincon, Puerto Rico.
SEC. 4140. PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water
resource purposes for the rivers in Providence, Rhode Island.
SEC. 4141. SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary, in collaboration with all relevant Federal and non-
Federal entities, including State and local governments, nonprofit
organizations, academia, and the general public, shall conduct
comprehensive watershed studies of all 8 watersheds in South Carolina
for water quality, habitat condition, environmental restoration, water
supply, and the potential impacts of climate change for South Carolina.
SEC. 4142. JAMES RIVER, SOUTH DAKOTA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
modifying the project for channel restoration and improvements on the
James River, South Dakota, authorized by section 401(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) to add ecosystem
restoration and watershed improvements as project purposes.
SEC. 4143. STATION CAMP CREEK, GALLATIN, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Station Camp
Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee.
SEC. 4144. BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study assessing the long-term impacts
of water use, withdrawal, recirculation, and downstream impacts on the
Whitney Lake Reservoir, Texas.
SEC. 4145. HICKORY CREEK, CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Hickory Creek,
City of Balch Springs, Texas.
SEC. 4146. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS (BARBOURS CUT), TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of modifying
the Barbours Cut element of the project for navigation and
environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels,
Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), to a depth of 45 feet.
SEC. 4147. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall 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, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).
SEC. 4148. SIMSBORO AQUIFER, CITY OF BASTROP, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
utilizing the Simsboro Aquifer for water supply for the City of
Bastrop, Texas.
SEC. 4149. NAVASOTA RIVER WATERSHED, GRIMES COUNTY, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, and related water resource purposes for the Navasota River
watershed, Grimes County, Texas.
SEC. 4150. RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, and water supply for the Rio Grande basin, Texas.
SEC. 4151. ROMA, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Roma, Texas.
SEC. 4152. COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UTAH.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for streambank stabilization for Cottonwood
Heights, Utah.
SEC. 4153. EMERY TOWN, UTAH.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of existing water
supply resources for Emery Town, Utah.
SEC. 4154. BIG SANDY RIVER REALLOCATION STUDY, VIRGINIA AND WEST
VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of reallocating water storage at 6 reservoirs
to optimize benefits for multiple-purpose use in the Big Sandy River
watershed, Virginia and West Virginia.
SEC. 4155. BUCKROE AND GRANDVIEW BEACHES, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for shoreline protection for Buckroe and
Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia.
SEC. 4156. FORT MONROE, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
including offshore breakwaters, for Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia.
SEC. 4157. HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for hurricane and storm damage reduction and
shoreline protection for Hampton, Virginia.
SEC. 4158. JAMES RIVER WATERSHED, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the water resource needs, including current and projected
future needs, for the James River watershed, Virginia.
SEC. 4159. ELLIOTT BAY, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation channel deepening for Elliott
Bay, Seattle, Washington.
SEC. 4160. GREEN RIVER, KENT, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Green River,
Kent, Washington.
SEC. 4161. VANCOUVER LAKE WATERSHED, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for environmental
quality and environmental restoration, especially related to salmon and
steelhead recovery issues, for the Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver,
Washington.
SEC. 4162. LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE, CITY OF CUDAHY, WISCONSIN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for shoreline protection for the Lake Michigan
shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 5001. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``pilot'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) In-kind services.--In accordance with section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
5b), the non-Federal interest may provide any portion
of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project
carried out under this section in the form of in-kind
services and materials.
``(D) Treatment of certain funds.--In accordance with
section 2007 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (33 U.S.C. 2222), funds provided by a Federal
department or agency other than the Corps of Engineers
for a project carried out under this section shall be
credited towards the non-Federal share of the cost of
project.'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i)
as subsections (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds
may be allotted under this section for a project at any single
locality.'';
(5) by striking subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph
(3) of this subsection) and inserting the following:
``(g) Projects.--The Secretary may carry out projects under this
section in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with the goal of carrying out
projects in each of the States of Delaware, New York, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the District of
Columbia.''; and
(6) in subsection (j) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of
this subsection) by striking ``$40,000,000'' and inserting
``$50,000,000''.
(b) Restoration of Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop at Federal
expense and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to
prioritize projects within the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
including projects in the Anacostia, Elizabeth, James,
Patapsco, Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, Susquehanna, and
York River basins.
(2) Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure that the plan
developed under paragraph (1)--
(A) focuses on integrating existing and potential
future work of the Corps of Engineers;
(B) is developed in consultation with the Chesapeake
Bay Program maintained under section 117 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1267)); and
(C) encompasses all actions of the Corps of Engineers
that are necessary to assist in the implementation of
the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, as defined
in section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1267)).
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000.
SEC. 5002. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY.
Section 5015(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121
Stat. 1196) is amended by striking ``$134,650,000'' and inserting
``$185,638,028''.
SEC. 5003. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.
Section 5002(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121
Stat. 1190) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9) by striking ``Esopus, Plattekill, and
Rondout Creeks'' and inserting ``Esopus, Rondout, and Wallkill
watersheds''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(19) San Gabriel River watershed, California.
``(20) South Platte River watershed, Colorado.
``(21) Loxahatchee River watershed, Jupiter, Florida.
``(22) Hudson River watershed, Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster
Counties, New York.
``(23) Muskingum River basin, Ohio.''.
SEC. 5004. COMPREHENSIVE SHORELINE RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem
restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and emergency
streambank protection components of projects at the locations described
in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that such component is
feasible.
(b) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in subsection (a)
are as follows:
(1) Miller Knox Shoreline, Richmond, California.
(2) Mississippi River, Davenport, Iowa.
(3) Lake Michigan (in the vicinity of the former USX Site),
Chicago, Illinois.
(4) Pond and Mill Creek watershed, Louisville, Kentucky.
(5) Massachusetts Bay (in the vicinity of Georges Island),
Boston, Massachusetts.
(6) Mississippi River (in the vicinity of the lower St.
Anthony Falls), Minneapolis, Minnesota.
(7) Brush Creek, Kansas City, Missouri.
(8) Mississippi River, Kimmswick, Missouri.
(9) Delaware River, Trenton, New Jersey.
(10) East River, New York, New York.
(11) Upper New York Bay, Staten Island, New York.
(12) Abbott's Creek, Lexington, North Carolina.
(13) Ohio River, Belpre, Ohio.
(14) Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(15) Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
(16) Ohio River, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
(17) Fields Point, Narragansett Bay, Providence, Rhode
Island.
(18) Congaree River, Columbia, South Carolina.
(19) Wolf Creek Harbor, Mississippi River, Tennessee.
(20) Ruston Way Seawall, Commencement Bay, Tacoma,
Washington.
(21) Lower Yahara River, McFarland, Wisconsin.
(c) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds may
be allotted under this section for a project at any single locality.
(d) Recreation.--The Secretary may include recreational components as
part of a project carried out under this section.
(e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal years 2011 through 2016.
SEC. 5005. NORTHEAST COASTAL REGION ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct
projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration within the coastal waters of
the Northeastern United States from Virginia to Maine, including
associated bays, estuaries, and critical riverine areas.
(b) General Coastal Management Plan.--
(1) Assessment.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the heads
of other appropriate Federal agencies, the Governors of the
coastal States from Virginia to Maine, nonprofit organizations,
and other interested parties, shall assess the needs regarding,
and opportunities for, aquatic ecosystem restoration within the
coastal waters of the Northeastern United States.
(2) Plan.--The Secretary shall develop a general coastal
management plan based on the assessment carried out under
paragraph (1), maximizing the use of existing plans and
investigations. The Secretary shall include in the plan the
following:
(A) An inventory and evaluation of coastal habitats.
(B) Identification of aquatic resources in need of
improvement.
(C) Identification and prioritization of potential
aquatic habitat restoration projects.
(D) Identification of geographical and ecological
areas of concern, including--
(i) finfish habitats;
(ii) diadromous fisheries migratory
corridors;
(iii) shellfish habitats;
(iv) submerged aquatic vegetation;
(v) wetlands; and
(vi) beach dune complexes and other similar
habitats.
(c) Eligible Projects.--The Secretary may carry out an aquatic
ecosystem restoration project under this section if the project--
(1) is consistent with the management plan developed under
subsection (b); and
(2) provides for--
(A) the restoration of degraded aquatic habitat
(including coastal, saltmarsh, benthic, and riverine
habitat);
(B) the restoration of geographical or ecological
areas of concern, including the restoration of natural
river and stream characteristics;
(C) the improvement of water quality; or
(D) other projects or activities determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary.
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Management plan.--The management plan developed under
subsection (b) shall be completed at Federal expense.
(2) Restoration projects.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of a project carried out under this section shall be 35
percent.
(e) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds may
be allocated under this section for an eligible project.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2011
and each fiscal year thereafter, including funds for the completion of
the management plan.
SEC. 5006. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem
restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, emergency streambank
protection, and aquatic plant control components of the Anacostia River
Watershed Restoration Plan, developed pursuant to section 5060 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1215), if the
Secretary determines that such component is feasible.
(b) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall
consult with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership.
(c) Federal Lands.--In carrying out a project component under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be provided
by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project component that
benefits federally owned property.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
SEC. 5007. EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service to carry out those portions of the
project for shoreline stabilization, Egmont Key, Florida, carried out
under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned
property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), that benefit
federally owned property.
SEC. 5008. CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out projects for environmental
protection and restoration at the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge,
Cambridge, Maryland. In carrying out such projects, the Secretary shall
accept funds from the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
SEC. 5009. HART-MILLER ISLAND, MARYLAND.
After the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may not
consider the use or expansion of Hart-Miller Island, Maryland, in any
dredged material management plan.
SEC. 5010. GALLOPS ISLAND, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for the
environmental remediation of Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts. In
carrying out such project, the Secretary shall accept funds from the
Director of the National Park Service.
SEC. 5011. SHARKEY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
Funding for the operation and maintenance of the multiagency wildlife
and environmental interpretative and education center, authorized by
section 145(f) of Division H of Public Law 108-199 (118 Stat. 443),
shall be provided by the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 5012. CHARLESTON HARBOR POST 45 PROJECT, CHARLESTON, SOUTH
CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reconnaissance and
feasibility studies for the Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project,
Charleston, South Carolina, and if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, shall proceed directly to project preconstruction,
engineering, and design.
SEC. 5013. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROMOTION OF GENERAL MICHAEL J.
WALSH TO MAJOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh has had a
distinguished 30-year career with the United States Army Corps
of Engineers, including as--
(A) District Commander of the San Francisco District,
San Francisco, California, from 1994 to 1996;
(B) District Commander of the Sacramento District,
Sacramento, California, from 1998 to 2001;
(C) Executive Director of Civil Works, Corps
Headquarters, Washington, District of Columbia, from
2001 to 2003;
(D) Chief of Staff, Corps Headquarters, Washington,
District of Columbia, from 2003 to 2004;
(E) Commander of the South Atlantic Division,
Atlanta, Georgia, from 2004 to 2006;
(F) Commander for the Corps Gulf Region Division,
Baghdad, Iraq, from 2006 to 2008; and
(G) Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, from 2008 to 2010.
(2) General Walsh has held a wide variety of Army command and
staff assignments, including--
(A) project management officer for Engineer Branch,
Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE);
(B) Environmental Task Force Leader, Fort Stewart,
Georgia;
(C) Executive Officer, 92nd Engineer Battalion, Fort
Stewart, Georgia, and Saudi Arabia;
(D) Project Engineer and Assistant Area Engineer,
Baltimore District;
(E) Construction Officer, 18th Engineer Brigade,
Darmstadt, Germany; and
(F) Commander, Company B, 94th Engineer Battalion,
Darmstadt, Germany.
(3) General Walsh has received several awards of the United
States Army, including 2 Bronze Stars, 4 Legions of Merit, and
numerous lesser awards.
(4) On October 27, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate unanimously approved the nomination of General Walsh
to the rank of Major General, United States Army.
(5) General Walsh's nomination was unreasonably delayed on
the floor of the Senate for 7 months.
(6) On May 19, 2010, the nomination of General Walsh to Major
General of the United States Army was confirmed by the United
States Senate by unanimous consent.
(7) On June 2, 2010, Brigadier General Walsh was formally
promoted to the rank of Major General.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of Congress that General
Walsh should be congratulated for his promotion to the rank of Major
General, United States Army, and should be commended for his duty and
dedication to the United States, to the United States Army, and to the
Corps of Engineers.
Purpose of Legislation
H.R. 5892, as amended, the ``Water Resources Development
Act of 2010'', includes project authorizations, modifications,
deauthorizations, studies, and policy initiatives for the Army
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Civil Works Program--the nation's
largest water resources program. The bill authorizes and
directs the Corps to carry out various studies, projects, and
programmatic authorities relating to navigation, flood damage
reduction, shoreline protection, water supply, recreation,
environmental restoration and protection, and other water-
related activities.
Background and Need for Legislation
H.R. 5892, as amended, the ``Water Resources Development
Act of 2010'', demonstrates the continuing commitment of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Committee) to
the nation's water resources infrastructure, and a regular
authorization schedule for the Civil Works Program of the
Corps, which was instituted by the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) (WRDA 1986). The Committee believes
that passage of H.R. 5892 is vitally important to fulfill
commitments to non-Federal sponsors, to be responsive to new
and emerging water resources needs, and to fine-tune the Corps'
missions and responsibilities.
Value of the Civil Works Program
The Committee recognizes the value of the Corps and the
Corps' Civil Works missions to the nation and the critical
importance of maintaining these vital contributions. Over the
years, the Corps has maintained flexibility in its Civil Works
missions to meet the changing needs of the nation. The Corps
has an impressive history of helping to meet the nation's water
resources needs. 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 Corps' flood damage reduction efforts range from small,
local protection projects (levees or non-structural flood
damage reduction measures) to major dams. Today, most Corps
constructed flood damage reduction projects are owned by
sponsoring cities, towns, and agricultural districts, but the
Corps continues to maintain and operate 383 dams and reservoirs
for flood damage reduction. These projects have prevented an
estimated $706 billion in flood damage, most of that within the
last 25 years. The cumulative cost for building and maintaining
these projects is $119 billion. Thus, for every dollar
invested, more than six dollars in potential damages have been
saved.
Legislation passed in 1990 established environmental
protection as one of the primary missions of the Corps--
together with navigation and flood damage reduction. Since that
time, ecosystem restoration projects have grown increasingly
popular throughout the country, resulting in an annual
investment of more than $1.3 billion in Federal support for
environmental activities. The Corps has provided leadership on
large-scale ecosystem restoration projects, including restoring
the hydrologic regime for the Everglades in Florida,
undertaking an ecosystem restoration project for the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway system, and addressing
wetland losses of catastrophic proportion in Coastal Louisiana.
In addition, the Corps carries out environmental and natural
resource management programs at its projects, manages thousands
of square miles of forest and wildlife habitat, monitors water
quality at its dams, and undertakes restoration activities to
address ongoing adverse environmental impacts of existing
Corps' projects and facilities.
As the Corps' Civil Works program continues to evolve in
its service to the nation, the Committee notes with interest
the efforts of the Chief of Engineers to encourage a more
holistic approach to water resources management. Over the past
few years, the Committee has heard from numerous witnesses how
an increased emphasis on watershed and basin-wide planning,
conducted in conjunction with state and local governments and
non-public stakeholders, can lead to a more sustainable use of
water resources that integrates water development, protection,
and restoration, as well as attempts to balance the often
competing uses of water, both for human development activities
and the natural system. This need for enhanced coordination on
a watershed basis has taken on urgency with increased evidence
of altered weather patterns and shifting hydrologic cycles in
the nation, and the growing unpredictability of reliable
sources of potable water. The Corps can play a particularly
important role in facilitating planning when the issues
affecting water resources concern multiple jurisdictions. The
Corps is encouraged to pursue efforts to improve coordination
and cooperation in the development of recommended approaches to
address water resources problems and formulating plans to solve
these problems.
Corps of Engineers Planning Process
In recent years, there has been some controversy regarding
the planning process used by the Corps to develop water
resources projects. The Civil Works program is a $4.5 billion
to $5.5 billion annual program. Of that amount, between $135
million and $145 million is invested annually to study water
resources needs, to determine if there is a Federal interest in
meeting those needs, and to develop recommendations for water
resources projects that are technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified.
For certain small projects, Congress has authorized the
Corps to participate in the development and construction under
continuing authorities. The Federal participation in these
small projects is limited to between $500,000 and $7 million
per project, depending on the project type. For all other
projects, the Corps must first receive authorization from
Congress to proceed with a study, either by statute or, if the
Corps previously has conducted a study in the same geographic
area, in the form of a Committee resolution.
Once authorized, a water resources study begins with a
reconnaissance study. The reconnaissance phase is a relatively
quick examination of the problem (generally costing no more
than $100,000 and lasting 12 months) during which the Corps
determines if there is a Federal interest and a potentially
feasible project. If the Corps determines, based on the
reconnaissance study, that there is a potentially feasible
water resources project, it may seek the participation of a
non-Federal interest willing to share in 50 percent of the
study costs (for studies for projects other than inland
navigation) and proceed to a full feasibility study. When
funded at capability, a feasibility study generally takes about
two years.
To ensure that a project is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, the
Corps must conduct a study in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, and policy, including the 1983 Principles and
Guidelines issued by the Water Resources Council, Engineering
Regulations issued by the Corps (and most recently
comprehensively revised in 1999), and other guidance
periodically issued by the Chief of Engineers. Studies for
projects with an estimated total cost of more than $45 million
are also subject to a peer review by an independent panel of
experts, pursuant to section 2034 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114) (WRDA 2007). Studies
that result in a report of the Chief of Engineers recommending
a water resources project are submitted to Congress for
authorization. Other than projects constructed under continuing
authorities, the Corps may not proceed to construction of a
project until it is specifically authorized by Congress. This
authorization is traditionally undertaken in a water resources
development bill.
Summary of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title; table of contents
This section provides that the short title of this Act is
the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010'' and includes a
table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary
This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for purposes of
this Act as the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 1001. Project authorizations
This section authorizes projects for water resources
development and conservation to be carried out substantially in
accordance with the reports of the Chief of Engineers cited for
each project, except as otherwise provided.
I. Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project,
Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, Maryland
Location of the Study Area: The study area is located in
the Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, Maryland.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Land
subsidence, rising sea level, and wave action are causing
valuable remote island habitats to be lost throughout the
Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 10,500 acres of island habitat
has been lost in the middle-eastern portion of Chesapeake Bay
in the last 150 years, and should present island loss rates
continue in the future, it is estimated that remote island
habitats will disappear from the Mid-Chesapeake Bay region
within 20 years. The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project would
restore thousands of acres of lost wetland and upland island
habitats. This restoration would provide critical regional
habitats supporting resident fisheries and wildlife, while
providing an environmentally sound method for the disposal of
dredged material from the Chesapeake Bay approach channels to
the Port of Baltimore.
The Dredged Material Management Plan and Tiered
Environmental Impact Statement (DMMP EIS) (USACE, 2005)
concluded that there is insufficient capacity for dredged
material placement to meet Federal and State of Maryland
dredging needs in the next 20 years and that there is potential
for overloading and subsequent loss of capacity at existing
placement sites if new placement sites are not constructed.
More than 130 miles of dredged shipping channels serve the Port
of Baltimore, and annual channel maintenance and improvement
projects require that approximately four to five million cubic
yards of sediment be dredged from these Federal and State
channels. In addition, the State of Maryland's Dredged Material
Management Act of 2001 phases out open water placement of
dredged material within Maryland waters by 2010, which will
result in insufficient placement capacity to meet the annual
need for maintenance dredging activity.
The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project provides multiple
opportunities to address the problems by:
Restoring habitat that is used by many
species of migratory birds, as well as fish and other
wildlife species, as resting, nesting, foraging, and
production areas;
Reducing the rate of island erosion, thereby
promoting conditions conducive to restoration and
protection of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) by
decreasing localized sediment inputs and improving
local water clarity;
Providing spawning, nursery, and sheltered
habitat for juvenile and forage fish species,
epibenthic invertebrates, and benthic infauna by
restoring wetland and shallow water areas;
Protecting shallow water areas from storm
and wave forces, providing suitable habitat for the
sustainable growth of SAV;
Providing essential nursery and foraging
habitat for numerous fish in restored wetland and
shallow water habitats;
Protecting shoreline for avian, reptilian,
and mammalian species resting, nesting, and foraging
areas;
Meeting the dredged material capacity
shortfall as projected in the DMMP of 30 to 70 million
cubic yards of dredged material over the 20-year
planning period; and
Providing shoreline protection and reducing
impacts from storms by reducing wave heights.
Alternative Plans Considered: Plan formulation was
conducted to determine a recommended plan that would provide
ecosystem benefits within site-specific constraints and meet
the long-term dredged material placement need of 3.2 million
cubic yards per year (mcy/y). The plan formulation process had
two primary phases, both of which included various ranking,
scoring, and screening processes. First, potential locations
suitable for a large island restoration project and meeting the
project objectives of habitat restoration and dredged material
capacity were identified. Second, feasible alternative
alignments were then developed to meet the engineering and
environmental design constraints for the potential site (or
sites). Plan formulation activities were all done in
collaboration with the Bay Enhancement Working Group (BEWG) as
detailed below.
Management Measures and Alternative Plans.
Island Site Selection. The process to select a
site for large island restoration had two components: (1)
identify all potential locations for a large island restoration
project within the study area (105 total existing or former
island sites); and (2) rank these sites using engineering and
environmental criteria and public input. Eight feasible island
sites were carried forward for additional consideration using
the ranking process developed by the BEWG as part of the State
of Maryland's DMMP process. The process evaluated sites on the
basis of 52 parameters to determine each site's environmental
suitability as a dredged material placement site. Based on the
results of the process, James and Barren Islands were selected
for detailed alternatives development.
Selection of Alternatives. Four Barren Island
alignments, five James Island alignments, and 20 additional
alignments that were combinations at both James Island and
Barren Island were used to develop an array of 145 feasible
alignment alternatives for evaluation. The screening of the
alternatives involved multiple analysis tools, including: (1)
geographic information system (GIS) analysis; (2) engineering
and design suitability screening; (3) ecosystem benefits
determination using Island Community Units (ICU) analysis; (4)
cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis; and (5) input
from resource agencies. Once feasible alignment alternatives
were identified, these alignments were optimized to maximize
ecosystem benefits and placement efficiency by evaluating
multiple wetland and upland proportions in conjunction with
variable upland dike heights, minimization of the project
footprint, and resource agency input.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan
consists of constructing James Island Alignment 5, with a
habitat proportion of 45 percent upland to 55 percent wetland
and an upland dike height of 20 feet Mean Lower Low Water
(MLLW), in combination with protection and restoration at
Barren Island through the construction of Alignment E. The
recommended plan will restore 2,144 acres of remote island
habitat (2,072 acres at James Island and 72 acres at Barren
Island), while also protecting approximately 1,325 acres of
potential SAV habitat adjacent to Barren Island and providing
approximately 90 to 95 mcy, or approximately 28 to 30 years, of
dredged material placement capacity.
The recommended plan was chosen to minimize the project
footprint and reduce overall project costs without
significantly reducing the capacity or ecosystem benefits or
dredged material capacity of the project. The recommended plan
had fewer ICUs than the James Alignment 5/Barren Alignment D
alternative mainly because the recommended plan has a smaller
wetland habitat proportion in the James Island portion of the
project, and a smaller Barren Island component of the project.
The James Alignment 5/Barren Alignment E was also significantly
less expensive.
In response to an External Peer Review comment, an
additional analysis was performed with the ICUs to incorporate
the loss of open water habitat from island restoration. The re-
analysis did not result in a change in the selection of the
recommended plan. Over its project life, the recommended plan
provides a total of 22,045 net ICUs. The only alternative that
provides a greater number of total net ICUs is the James
Alignment 5/Barren protection alternative at 40 percent/60
percent upland/wetland ratio which provides a net of 23,275
ICU, but does so at a higher cost.
Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended project
alternative fulfills the primary objective of the study
authority; which is ecosystem restoration while simultaneously
meeting a complimentary objective that is the beneficial use of
dredged material. The plan will restore 2,144 acres of remote
island habitat and protect 1,325 acres of SAV through the
placement of 90 to 95 mcy over 28 to 30 years. Benefits for
ecosystem restoration projects are not expressed in monetary
terms, which preclude a benefit-to-cost ratio. The ecosystem
restoration outputs for this study are expressed in ICUs based
on complex metrics used to measure their significance. A
rigorous Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analysis was
conducted to support the selection of the recommended
alternative. This alternative produces substantial ecological
benefits, which exceed the Federal Standard, in the most
efficient and cost effective manner. The recommended
alternative will produce 813 total annual ICUs. The James
Island component will produce 459 annual ICUs at an annual cost
of $69,682 per ICU and the Barren Island component will produce
354 annual ICUs at an annual cost of $4,702 per ICU. Federal
interest is established for the recommended alternative based
on the production of maximum ecosystem restoration benefits in
the most cost effective manner. Total project cost is
$1,612,000,000 of which $1,045,000,000 is at Federal expense
and $567,000,000 is the responsibility of the non-Federal
sponsor.
Views of States and Non-Federal Interests: The State of
Maryland responded via letter dated 19 September 2008, with no
comment during the 30-day State and Federal agency review
period, which began on 20 September 2008, and expired on 20
October 2008.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Department
of Interior (DOI) responded via letter dated 20 October 2008,
with no comment. The Department of Commerce (DOC) responded via
email dated 27 October 2008, with no comment. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) responded via letter dated 7 October
2008, with no comment.
Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Report was completed for the project. The Notice of
Availability for the Final SEIS/EIR was published in the
Federal Register on 19 September 2008; the final date for
comments was 20 October 2008. No significant comments have been
received.
Estimated Implementation Cost:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $1,045,000,000
Non-Federal Interest.................................... 567,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $1,612,000,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: The Maryland Port
Administration, under the auspices of the Maryland Department
of Transportation is the non-Federal sponsor for the project.
The estimated total first cost including contingencies for the
Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project is
$1.612 billion based on October 2008 price levels. The Federal
share of the total project costs would be $1.045 billion for
the Federal Government (65 percent) and $567 million for the
non-Federal sponsor (35 percent). Operations, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement (OMRR&R) costs for the
completed project are projected to be less than two percent of
the total project coast and would be a non-Federal
responsibility. The first costs for the recommended recreation
facilities are estimated at $210,000. The Federal Government
and the non-Federal sponsor will each share 50 percent of the
cost or $105,000. Since the recreation features are not planned
to be constructed until the project is largely complete, OMRR&R
costs would be incurred beyond the period of analysis for the
project and so are not included in the project cost.
Estimated Effects: The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project
provides multiple opportunities to address the problems by:
Restoring habitat that is used by many
species of migratory birds, as well as fish and other
wildlife species, as resting, nesting, foraging, and
production areas;
Reducing the rate of island erosion, thereby
promoting conditions conducive to restoration and
protection of SAV by decreasing localized sediment
inputs and improving local water clarity;
Providing spawning, nursery, and sheltered
habitat for juvenile and forage fish species,
epibenthic invertebrates, and benthic infauna by
restoring wetland and shallow water areas;
Protecting shallow water areas from storm
and wave forces, providing suitable habitat for the
sustainable growth of SAV;
Providing essential nursery and foraging
habitat for numerous fish in restored wetland and
shallow water habitats;
Protecting shoreline for avian, reptilian,
and mammalian species resting/nesting/foraging areas;
Meeting the dredged material capacity
shortfall as projected in the DMMP of 30 to 70 million
cubic yards of dredged material over the 20-year
planning period; and
Providing shoreline protection and reducing
impacts from storms by reducing wave heights.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 24 August 2009.
II. Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Mississippi
Location of the Study Area: The Mississippi Coastal
Improvements Program (MsCIP) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive
Plan) study area consists of the three Mississippi coastal
counties: Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson.
Problems and Opportunities: The problems identified by the
study team, State, county, and city officials, residents, and
agency staff, included Hurricane-induced:
Storm surge caused significant damage to
structures and infrastructure within the three-county
(Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson) MsCIP study area;
Storm surge caused significant damage to
coastal ecosystems and fish and wildlife resources
within the three-county study area;
Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi
Sound ecosystem and associated coastal environments;
and
Erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal
infrastructure within the three county MsCIP study
area.
Comprehensive, system-wide opportunities were identified
during the MsCIP planning process to guide the development and
evaluation of solutions to the region's water resource
problems. An overall theme of Comprehensive Plan opportunities
is not merely to reverse the harm done by the storms of 2005
hurricane season (e.g., Hurricanes Katrina and Rita), but, as
importantly, to promote the long-term future sustainability of
physical, human, and environmental resources within the study
area.
The comprehensive, system-wide opportunities include:
Assisting in sustainable redevelopment of
hurricane damaged physical, environmental, and human
resources within the MsCIP study area;
Reducing the susceptibility of residential,
commercial, and public structures and infrastructure to
hurricane induced storm damages within the three-county
(Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson) MsCIP study area;
Assisting in the recovery and long-term
sustainability of coastal wetlands that support
important fish and wildlife resources within the study
area;
Accelerating the recovery and assist in the
long-term sustainability of maritime forest
environments that suffered hurricane induced damages;
Restoring barrier island environments that
suffered hurricane induced storm damages in a manner
that promotes long-term sustainability of their fish
and wildlife resources;
Reducing saltwater intrusion within the
Mississippi Sound coastal environment; and
Assisting in the recovery of coastal
ecosystems and infrastructure damaged by erosion during
the hurricane events of 2005 and support programs that
promote long-term erosion reduction and limit erosion
potential during future hurricane events.
Alternative Plans Considered: A system-wide approach was
used in formulating the MsCIP Comprehensive Plan to ensure that
both the MsCIP and the Louisiana Coastal Protection and
Restoration (LaCPR) efforts were fully coordinated and
developed complementary plans for the restoration of the Gulf
coastal region as an integrated system.
In addition, the planning effort has taken a top-down,
comprehensive planning approach, beginning with development of
a Comprehensive Plan to address the overall water resources
problems and opportunities of the region. Building off of the
comprehensive identification of problems and opportunities, the
planning effort then proceeded to develop site-specific
problems, opportunities, and solutions that contribute to
accomplishing the comprehensive vision for the restoration and
protection of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The results of this
effort led to a comprehensive regional plan that addresses
hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental
restoration needs, as well as recommending a variety of site-
specific projects either for immediate implementation or
further investigation and subsequent implementation.
The Draft MsCIP Comprehensive Plan Report and Integrated
Environmental Impact Statement (Report) contain both a
Comprehensive Plan and a variety of water resource development
projects that were developed through the planning process. The
Report also describes components of the Comprehensive Plan,
which require additional investigations prior to identifying a
specific recommendation for construction.
The planning process utilized in the MsCIP study was a
highly iterative process. Multiple iterations of the Corps' six
planning steps were required due to the fact that new problems
or data were constantly being identified. In addition, the
development of large-scale plans, such as ``Lines of Defense''
(LOD), brought new problems and opportunities to light, which
needed to be included in the planning process. The following
sections describe the specific measures considered and the
results of the screening and evaluation process.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Comprehensive Plan has
been developed in a progressive fashion with plan elements to
be implemented: (1) in the short term (interim projects); (2)
in the near term (recommended for construction); (3) following
limited additional evaluation and documentation (AED); (4)
following more detailed evaluation and documentation of a
specific plan element (contingent authorization); and (5) those
elements requiring significant study, design, and documentation
(feasibility study). Each plan feature has been developed to be
a cost-efficient feature with significant advancement toward
the comprehensive goal of developing a resilient coastal zone;
however, the synergistic benefits will accrue as more of the
plan features are implemented. These synergistic benefits
between plan features have not been estimated. Implementation
of the comprehensive plan could ultimately result in the
acquisition and/or flood-proofing of more than 58,000 parcels
within the zone having a one percent chance of annual
inundation (100-year floodplain), reduction of risk to areas
considered to have moderately high risk from storm surge
effects, restoration and/or enhancement of over 30,000 acres of
coastal forest, wetland, estuarine, and beach and dune
habitats, and the continued sustainability of the Mississippi
Sound ecosystem.
The Report supports the recommendation of the following
tentatively selected features to Congress for authority to
implement the MsCIP Comprehensive Plan:
1. Construct the list of projects seeking a construction
Record of Decision (ROD):
Barrier Island Restoration;
Turkey Creek Ecosystem Restoration;
Bayou Cumbest Ecosystem Restoration;
Dantzler Ecosystem Restoration;
Admiral Island Ecosystem Restoration;
Franklin Creek Ecosystem Restoration;
High Hazard Area Risk Reduction Plan (HARP
Phase 1);
Deer Island Ecosystem Restoration;
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration;
Coast-wide Beach and Dune Restoration;
Moss Point Municipal Structures Relocation;
Waveland Residential Structure Flood
Proofing;
Forrest (Forest) Heights Levee Elevation.
2. Conduct feasibility level investigations for:
investigations of:
Long-term High Hazard Area Risk Reduction
Features;
Escatawpa River Freshwater Diversion;
Additional Environmental Restoration
Features; and
Additional Structural Hurricane and Storm
Damage Risk Reduction Features.
The Congressional authorization for this study mandated a
comprehensive approach to solutions for water resource problems
in coastal Mississippi. The comprehensive nature of the study
team's approach included identifying solutions regardless of
implementation authority or agency. Therefore, a number of
tentatively selected plan features also include education and
hurricane preparedness. These features include:
Hurricane Risk Reduction Education;
Hurricane and Storm Warning Systems;
Hurricane Evacuation Planning Services
Floodplain Management;
Building Codes;
Zoning Codes; and
Relocation of Critical Infrastructure and
Services (LOD 5).
Feasibility level investigations concerning freshwater
diversion at Violet, Louisiana, are authorized by Congress
under WRDA 2007. Section 3083 of WRDA 2007 authorized the
design and implementation of a project for diversion of
freshwater at or near Violet, Louisiana, for the purposes of
reducing salinity in the western Mississippi Sound, enhancing
oyster production, and promoting the sustainability of coastal
wetlands. The MsCIP supports this action as a critical element
to sustain the ecosystems of coastal Mississippi. This Report
supports a recommendation to Congress for funding this project
in full coordination with the States of Mississippi and
Louisiana, the appropriate entities within the Corps, and other
interested stakeholders.
The following table identifies how the tentatively
recommended components of the Comprehensive Plan address the
Congressional concerns identified in the authorization. These
components are ``keystone'' pieces of the Comprehensive Plan on
which later recommendations would build. These plan elements
have been determined to be technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified. Each of these
tentatively recommended components are designed to be
implemented and function as stand alone units should additional
time be required to design all plan components or additional
plan components be determined to not be cost effective.
TABLE 2--COMPONENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas of concern
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Storm damage Salt water
reduction Erosion reduction intrusion Fish and wildlife
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Hazard Area Risk Reduction .................. ..................
Plan...........................
Additional Damage Reduction .................. .................. ..................
Alternatives...................
Additional Ecosystem Restoration ..................
Alternatives...................
Barrier Island Restoration......
Violet, LA Fresh Water Diversion
Escatawpa Fresh Water Diversion. .................. ..................
Beach and Dune Restoration...... ..................
SAV Restoration................. .................. .................. ..................
Moss Point Municipal Structure .................. ..................
Relocation.....................
Waveland Floodproofing.......... .................. .................. ..................
Forrest (Forest) Heights Levee.. .................. .................. ..................
Deer Island Restoration......... ..................
Turkey Creek Restoration........ .................. ..................
Bayou Cumbest Restoration....... .................. .................. ..................
Dantzler Restoration............ .................. .................. ..................
Admiral Island Restoration...... .................. ..................
Franklin Creek Restoration...... .................. ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The State of Mississippi Clearinghouse for Federal Programs
responded by letter dated 31 August 2009. The letter states the
following: ``None of the state agencies involved in the review
had comments or recommendations at this time. This concludes
the State Clearinghouse review, and we encourage appropriate
action as soon as possible. A copy of this letter is to be
attached to the application as evidence of compliance with
Executive Order 12372 review requirements.''
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The DOI responded
by letter dated 27 July 2009 with a request for a supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement prior to the Barrier Island
construction and additional analysis to include a littoral zone
deposition area near Cat Island. The DOC, responded by letter
dated 5 August 2009, with no comment. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) responded by phone on 10 August 2009, with
no comment. The U.S. Coast Guard responded by letter dated 25
September, with no comment. The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services responded by letter dated 16 September 2009,
with no comment. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development responded via telephone on 6 August 2009 with no
comment. The EPA, Region 4, responded by letter dated 30 July
2009 with no comment. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) responded via email on 2 September 2009, with no
comment.
Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Report was completed for the project. The Notice of
Availability for the Final SEIS/EIR was published in the
Federal Register on 1 July 2009; the final date for comments
was 3 August 2009.
Estimated Implementation Cost:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $265,110,000
Non-Federal Interest.................................... 142,750,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $407,860,000
Estimated Effects of the Recommended Plan: The
Comprehensive Plan provides integrated systems-based solutions
and tentatively selected plans that address: hurricane and
storm damage reduction, ecosystem and restoration and fish and
wildlife preservation, reduction of damaging saltwater
intrusion, and reduction of coastal erosion. The tentatively
selected plans also provide measures that aid in: regional
economic redevelopment, positive societal effects, and long-
term measures to reduce risk to the public and property.
The benefits of the recommended MsCIP Comprehensive Plan
are as follows:
1. Construction projects:
Barrier Island Restoration--Maintain and sustain
the fragile Mississippi Sound ecosystem with its economic,
recreational, environmental, and aesthetic benefits, provide
for additional nesting habitat for threatened and endangered
sea turtles and over wintering critical habitat for the piping
plover, fishery losses avoided by restoration of the island
equate to $43 million in average annual benefits.
Turkey Creek Ecosystem Restoration--689 acres of
wet pine savannah restoration.
Bayou Cumbest Ecosystem Restoration--110 acres of
tidal marsh and 38 acres of scrub shrub habitat restoration.
Dantzler Ecosystem Restoration--385 acres of wet
pine savannah restoration.
Admiral Island Ecosystem Restoration--62 acres of
tidal marsh and 61 acres of scrub shrub habitat restoration.
Franklin Creek Ecosystem Restoration--149 acres of
wet pine savannah restoration.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration--
Additional study via an in-situ pilot project which will inform
future restoration efforts.
Coast-wide Beach and Dune Restoration--Restores
piping plover habitat and habitat for other shorebirds,
provides eco-tourism opportunities, and enhance overall quality
of life in coastal Mississippi. The construction of elevated
dunes, situated immediately seaward of developed areas,
provides additional protection against smaller hurricanes.
Moss Point Municipal Structures Relocation--The
relocation of these facilities would greatly reduce future
damages to the local infrastructure and provide a higher
confidence in uninterrupted public service in future events.
Waveland Residential Structure Flood Proofing--
Twenty-five structures in the Waveland area that would be
safely elevated out of the one percent chance storm event.
Future damages to these structures would be significantly
reduced and the area would serve as an example of smart growth.
Forrest (Forest) Heights Levee Improvements--
Equivalent annual damages reduced by the 21-foot levee are
estimated to be $331,508. In addition, the levee improvement
provide a significant boost to the cohesiveness of the
historically significant community, preserve the culture and
heritage of its predominantly minority residential population,
and greatly improve their overall quality of life.
High Hazard Area Risk Reduction Plan (HARP Phase
1)--The average annual average damages avoided for the 2,000
highest risk properties along the coastline were determined to
be $33,000,000.
2. Feasibility level investigations:
Escatawpa River Diversion and Grand Bay Marsh
Ecosystem Restoration--A freshwater diversion project in the
area, if feasible, may serve to enhance the wildlife resources
of the area. The need for freshwater diversion at the Grand Bay
savannahs and marshes would help restore the predominant wet
pine savannah habitat.
Additional Damage Reduction Alternatives--A very
preliminary estimate of annual without-project damages for
these potential structural solutions totals well over $60
million. The implementation of ring levees and/or other
structural components in these areas would reduce a significant
portion of storm-related damages and warrants further
feasibility level consideration.
Additional Coastal Mississippi Ecosystem
Restoration Alternatives--This analysis identified 38
additional potential restoration sites which would primarily
restore the hydrology and natural landscape of the coastal
counties with incidental risk reduction benefits, or which
would primarily reduce the risk to life and property from
future hurricane storm surge events and secondly provide for
substantial environmental benefit. The total restoration
potential for these 38 sites is 27,380 acres.
Feasibility analysis of the Long-term HARP--The
benefits of an ongoing acquisition and relocation program for
coastal Mississippi could be tremendous taken into account the
implications of sea level rise, continued development along the
coast, and the frequency and magnitude of storms known to
affect this area of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The additional
study effort aimed at developing the framework and guidelines,
detailed benefits, and costs would involve local and State
interests as well as FEMA.
3. Education and hurricane preparedness to be implemented
by others:
Hurricane Risk Reduction Education--Warn residents
of coastal Mississippi as to the extreme hazard to all that
reside in the area, from the dual hazards of wind and surge/
waves.
Hurricane and Storm Warning Systems--Make all
residents and visitors aware of the current hurricane threat.
Hurricane Evacuation Planning--An evacuation plan,
with preservation of life as the single most important goal, is
an essential component of a comprehensive plan for ensuring the
safety of residents of and visitors to the coast of
Mississippi.
Floodplain Management--Data and information
developed in this analysis provides local government tools to
be used in the determination of how to manage development or
location of inhabited development, infrastructure, businesses,
hazardous waste facilities, sites that contain large, un-
anchored structural components when developing Master Plans for
their communities.
Building Codes--Assure that the latest design and
construction techniques are being used that apply to hurricane-
resistant construction.
Zoning Codes--Counties and cities may make full
use of the resources provided under this study to limit
development in highest hazard areas to those uses that will
incur lesser damage and risks to life and safety.
Relocation of Critical Infrastructure and Services
(LOD 5)--Relocation of critical infrastructure and services
outside the Maximum Probable Intensity (MPI) boundary so that
these facilities and structures are capable of surviving the
event, so that they can function after recession of the surge,
to provide services and protect lives and property.
4. Feasibility level investigations concerning freshwater
diversion at Violet, LA (authorized by Congress under WRDA
2007):
Achieve each State's goals of establishing and
maintaining salinity regimes for oysters and introducing
sediment into the eroding Biloxi marshes of Louisiana.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 25 September 2009.
III. West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach),
North Carolina
Location of the Study Area: Topsail Beach is located at the
southern end of Topsail Island adjacent to New Topsail Inlet in
Pender County on the central North Carolina coast.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Topsail
Beach is subject to hurricanes and other tropical storms, and
northeasters. The long-term erosion and short-term erosion from
various storms erode the beach and undermine homes and other
structures along the shoreline. A lesser amount of damage
occurs from flooding and wave action. The average annual
structural damage is estimated at $9,238,000 when evaluated at
October 2006 levels and a 4\7/8\ percent interest rate. The
loss of the beach between the shoreline and the existing
structures reduces the area available for recreation and for
natural habitat, such as sea turtle nesting.
Alternative Plans Considered: Both nonstructural and
structural measures were considered. Nonstructural measures
considered are changes in regulations and physical
modifications to reduce damages. Nonstructural regulatory
measures are coastal building codes, building construction
setbacks, and floodplain regulations. Most regulatory measures
are no longer considered for potential in the alternative plans
because these measures have already been implemented, they do
not affect older structures, and there are few remaining vacant
lots, suitable for development, which would benefit. These
measures are considered as part of the existing and without-
project conditions. Another category of nonstructural measures
is removal of beachfront structures from the threat. The three
removal measures are: (1) retreat landward within the same
property parcel; (2) relocation a longer distance to a vacant
property; and (3) demolition. Acquisition of the vacated
property is included in both the relocation and demolition
measures. All of these removal measures were retained for
consideration in the nonstructural alternative.
Structural measures considered were beachfills and hard
structures such as breakwaters, seawalls, revetments,
bulkheads, groin fields and a terminal groin. Beachfill
measures consist of berms, dunes, and terminal sections. The
beachfill measures are considered some of the most appropriate,
since they mimic the natural environment and can be shaped to
maximize net storm damage reduction benefits. A terminal groin
at New Topsail Inlet was included in the National Economic
Development (NED) plan in the 1991 Chief of Engineers report,
although it was not part of the authorized plan. This terminal
groin was also retained for consideration in the general
reevaluation report (GRR). The other types of hard structure
measures were dropped from further consideration because,
although they may reduce structural damages, each would have
different potential adverse impacts to the beach.
Description of Recommended Plan: The selected plan for
recommendation is the locally-preferred plan (LPP), Plan 1250X.
The NED Plan having the highest net benefits is Plan 1550. Both
plans meet the project objectives and constraints. Table 1
provides pertinent physical data on the Authorized Plan, the
GRR LPP, and the GRR NED Plan.
TABLE 1--TOPSAIL BEACH, NC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan dimensions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions Authorized HD 393/102/
2 GRR, LPP, Plan 1250X GRR, NED, Plan 1550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dune, topwidth....................... 25 feet................ 25 feet................ 25 feet
Dune, elevation, NGVD................ 13.6 feet.............. 12 feet................ 15 feet
Dune, landward slope................. 5H:1V.................. 5H:1V.................. 5H:1V
Dune, seaward slope.................. 5H:1V.................. 10H:1V................. 10H:1V
Dune and storm berm, width........... 35 feet................ None................... None
Dune and storm berm, elevation, NGVD. 9.6 feet............... None...................
Dune and storm berm, seaward slope... 5H:1V.................. None................... None
Beach berm, width.................... 40 feet................ 50 feet................ 50 feet
Beach berm, elevation, NGVD.......... 7.6 feet............... 7 feet................. 7 feet
Beach berm, seaward slope............ 12H:1V................. 15H:1V................. 15H:1V
Dune and berm fill, length........... 10,250 feet............ 23,200 feet............ 22,800 feet
North transition section, length..... 7,150 feet............. 2,000 feet............. 2,000 feet
South transition section, length..... 1,800 feet............. 1,000 feet............. 1,400 feet
Total Length......................... 19,200 feet............ 26,200 feet............ 26,200 feet
Volume, initial, in-place............ *4,566,000 CY.......... 2,387,000 CY........... 3,420,000 CY
Volume, renourishment, in place...... 644,000 CY............. 690,000 CY............. 690,000 CY
Renourishment interval............... 2 years................ 25 feet................ 4 years
Borrow source........................ Banks Channel.......... 12 feet................ Off Shore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The project sponsor supports for Plan 1250X as the LPP.
During completion of the Draft GRR, the sponsor indicated that
some of the reasons for preferring Plan 1250X over NED Plan
1550 are:
Both plans move the shoreline significantly
seaward;
Plan 1250X costs 24.1 percent less, but
reduces net benefits 2.3 percent;
Plan 1250X has the greatest HSDR benefit-to-
cost ratio, and the second highest total benefit-to-
cost ratio;
Plan 1250X has a lower cost to the Town;
Plan 1250X will have lower Congressional
appropriation requirements; and
Plan 1250X provides better protection to the
Godwin Avenue area.
Other common features of both plans are dune vegetation and
construction of dune walkover structures. The real estate to be
acquired for the project will be a Perpetual Beach Storm Damage
Reduction Easement for approximately 397 parcels. Based on
project maps and ground examination, no structures appear to be
impacted. There is no separable recreation feature, however
incidental recreation benefits will be gained from the wider
beach.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The State of North Carolina responded via letter dated 15
September 2008, with comment during the 30-day State and
Federal agency review period, which began on 16 August 2008 and
expired on 16 September 2008. The State requested that the
Corps coordinate with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping
Program to support revisions to the Digital Flood Insurance
Rate Maps. The State also requested the Corps to fully support
the local officials in communicating risks, both with and
without the project and coastal flood hazard to the public.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The DOI responded
via letter dated 12 September 2008, with comment on the sea
level rise in decision making and the Corps explained that sea
level rise are unlikely to affect the plan selection, the
projects compliance with Executive Order 11988, and wise
floodplain development that the Corps discussed in the report.
The DOC responded via letter dated 30 September 2008, with no
comment. The Mineral Management Services responded via letter
dated 2 September 2008, with many comments pertaining to plan
formulation, environmental effects to plans considered, models
used to evaluate offshore sediment transport, impacts to sea
turtles, and mitigation measures. EPA responded via letter
dated 12 September 2008, with comments on shortening the 50-
year project life, the use of the Generalized Risk and
Uncertainty Coastal Plan (GRANDUC) coastal response model
relating to modeling hurricanes, and possible erosion of
deposited fill material. FEMA responded via email 25 September
2008, with no comment.
Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Report was completed for the project. The Notice of
Availability for the Final SEIS/EIR was published in the
Federal Register on 15 August 2008; the final date for comments
was 16 September 2008. No significant comments have been
received.
Estimated Implementation Cost:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $91,192,000
Non-Federal Interest.................................... 78,840,000
Total............................................... $170,032,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: There are no Federal annual
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. The local sponsor, Town
of Topsail Beach, North Carolina, will be responsible for all
O&M costs for the recommended plan estimated at $22,000
annually.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Estimated OMRR&R
annual costs are $22,000. The non-Federal sponsor for project
implementation is the Town of Topsail Beach, North Carolina.
The Town of Topsail Beach is the non-Federal cost-sharing
sponsor for all features and is responsible for the OMRR&R of
the project after construction.
Relationship to Other Plans: The original project was
authorized in section 101(15) of the Water Resources
Development Act 1992 (P.L. 102-580) (WRDA 1992) at a total cost
of $14,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,600,000,
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,500,000. The authorized
project was never constructed.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 28 September 2009.
Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction
This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out
projects for flood damage reduction under the authority of
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-858),
which authorizes $55,000,000 a year for Federal participation
in small flood damage reduction projects up to $7,000,000 per
project, with a minimum 35 percent non-Federal cost-share, at
the following locations:
1. Del Rosa Channel, San Bernadino, California.
2. Laguna Creek, Vacaville, California.
3. Ulatis Creek, Vacaville, California.
4. Sanderson Gulch, Denver, Colorado.
5. Willow Creek, Creede, Colorado.
6. Big Econ River, Orange, Florida.
7. Bay Gall Creek, Warner Robbins, Georgia.
8. Des Plaines, Park Ridge, Illinois.
9. Kishwaukee River, Dekalb, Illinois.
10. Navajo Creek, Palos Heights, Illinois.
11. Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois.
12. Vicinity of the 71st Street Ditch, Justice, Illinois.
13. West Branch of Mill Creek, Palos Park, Illinois.
14. Dry Run Creek, Waterloo, Iowa.
15. Louisville, Kentucky.
16. Baltimore City, Maryland.
17. Pine Tree Brook, Avon, Massachusetts.
18. Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.
19. Harding Canal Seawall, Detroit, Michigan.
20. Big River, High Ridge, Missouri.
21. Saw Mill River basin, Greehburgh, New York.
22. Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York.
23. Independence, Ohio.
24. Valley View, Ohio.
25. Winyeh Bay, Georgetown, South Carolina.
26. Del Rio, Val Verde, Texas.
27. Craford Bay Seawall, Portsmouth, Virginia.
28. Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth,
Virginia.
29. Roxbury and Westpoint Townships, Wisconsin.
Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection
This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out
projects for streambank erosion control under section 14 of the
Flood Control Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-525), which authorizes
$15,000,000 a year for Federal participation in projects up to
$1,500,000 per project, with a 35 percent non-Federal cost-
share, at the following locations:
1. Naknek River, Naknek, Alaska.
2. Quinnipiac River, New Haven, Connecticut.
3. Biscayne Bay, North Bay Village, Florida.
4. Bronx River, New York, New York.
5. Ohio River, Ironton, Ohio.
6. Newport, Rhode Island.
7. Tiverton, Rhode Island.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation
This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out
projects for navigation, under the authority of section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645), which
authorizes $35,000,000 a year for Federal participation in
small navigation projects up to $7,000,000 per project with
non-Federal cost-sharing as determined under the WRDA of 1986,
at the following locations:
1. Detroit River, Wyandotte, Michigan.
2. Stouts Creek, Lacey Township, New Jersey.
3. Brown's River, Nassau County, New York.
4. Detroit Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment
This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out a
project for improvement of the environment, under the authority
of section 1135 of WRDA 1986, which authorizes $40,000,000 a
year for Federal participation in projects up to $5,000,000 per
project, with a 25 percent non-Federal cost-share, at the
following locations:
1. Rheem Creek, Contra Costa County, California.
2. Rodeo Creek, Contra Costa County, California.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration
This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out
projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration under the authority
of section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-303) (WRDA 1996), which authorizes $50,000,000 a year
for Federal participation in small ecosystem restoration and
protection projects up to $5,000,000 per project, with a 35
percent non-Federal cost-share, at the following locations:
1. Emeryville Harbor, Emeryville, California.
2. Los Angeles River, Cudahy, California.
3. Laguna Salada, Pacifica, California.
4. Animas River, La Plata, Colorado.
5. North Fork of the Gunnison River, Delta, Colorado.
6. Line and Cane Creeks, Henry County, Georgia.
7. Bremme Creek, Dupage, Illinois.
8. Blackberry Creek, Kendall, Illinois.
9. Gompers Park, North Branch Chicago River, Illinois.
10. Kankakee River, Will County, Illinois.
11. Prairie Creek Watershed, Will County, Illinois.
12. West Branch of the Dupage River, Dupage, Illinois.
13. Long Creek Watershed, Cumberland, Maine.
14. Cabin Branch Watershed, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
15. Little Paint Branch Stream, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
16. Lower Beaverdam Creek, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
17. Northeast Anacostia River, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
18. Northwest Anacostia River, Prince George's County,
Maryland.
19. Assabet River, Middlesex and Worcester, Massachusetts.
20. Lewis Bay, Yarmouth, Massachusetts.
21. Pig's Eye Lake, St. Paul, Minnesota.
22. Barnegat Bay, Ocean County, New Jersey.
23. Branchport Creek, Oceanport Borough, New Jersey.
24. Hackensack River, Hudson County, New Jersey.
25. Lake Topanemus, Freehold, New Jersey.
26. Las Cruces Dam, Dona Ana, New Mexico.
27. Pugsley Creek, Castle Hill, New York.
28. Olentangy River, Franklin, Ohio.
29. Scioto River, Franklin, Ohio.
30. Woonasquatucket River, Providence, Rhode Island.
31. Claytor Lake, Pulaski, Virginia.
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection
This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out
projects under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing the Federal participation in the cost of protecting
the shores of publicly owned property,'' approved August 13,
1946, which authorizes $30,000,000 a year for Federal
participation in small shoreline protection projects, up to
$5,000,000 per project, with a 35 percent non-Federal cost-
share, at the following locations:
1. Deerfield Beach, Broward County, Florida.
2. Barnegat, Ocean County, New Jersey.
3. Manhasset Bay, Port Washington, New York.
Sec. 1008. Small projects for aquatic plant control
Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to study and carry out
a project for aquatic nuisance plant control under section 104
of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) at
Republican River basin, Colorado.
Subsection (b) establishes a special rule for the project
at Republican River basin, Colorado, that the Secretary may
control and eradicate riverine nuisance plants.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions
This section amends section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
1970 (P.L. 91-611) (1970 Act) to clarify language that was
added to that section by WRDA 2007.
In the years prior to WRDA 2007, the Committee received an
increasing number of requests from non-Federal interests for
credit for work undertaken by the non-Federal interest and
associated with a Federal project. In the absence of a general
authority, the Committee was accommodating these requests by
individual provisions in WRDA bills.
Section 2003 of WRDA 2007 amended section 221 of the 1970
Act to provide general authority to the Secretary to provide
credit for work undertaken by non-Federal interests without
project-specific legislative authority. In providing the
credit, certain conditions of eligibility would need to be met.
Because the WRDA 2007 amendments included preconditions for
eligibility, WRDA 2007 retained the project-specific credit
provisions that were requested prior to WRDA 2007's enactment.
To accommodate both the general provision being added to
section 221 and the project-specific provisions in the Act,
WRDA 2007 included language that allowed the project-specific
provision to apply rather than the general provision.
Subsequent implementation of amended section 221 by the Corps
has resulted in consequences contrary to the intent of the
amendment. For example, where the project language allows for
credit for work done prior to the date of enactment of the Act,
the Corps interpreted the current language in section 221 to
preclude credit for any work undertaken following the date of
enactment of WRDA 2007.
This amendment addresses those contrary consequences.
Subsection (a) of the bill amends section 221(a)(4)(E) by
replacing the current language in clause (ii) with language
making it clear that the intent of the credit provision in
section 221 is to allow the non-Federal interest to receive the
benefits of the project-specific provision for credit as that
project-specific provision is written, and to allow the non-
Federal interest to receive the benefits of the general
provision for credit where the non-Federal interest meets the
eligibility conditions of the law.
For example, where a specific provision of law allows for
credit for work undertaken prior to the execution of the
project partnership agreement, the non-Federal interest can
receive the benefits of that provision of law. If the work
meets the eligibility requirements (typically that the work be
integral to the project), the Secretary is to afford credit for
the cost of that work against the non-Federal share. Moreover,
if the non-Federal interest seeks to conduct additional work
beyond the scope of the project specific credit language and
with the intent of receiving credit, the Secretary is to give
credit to the non-Federal sponsor for the Federal share of that
work using the general credit authority in section 221.
Receiving the benefits of project specific credit language
should not preclude the application of the general credit
language. The amendment in this section clarifies this
authority. The amendment also provides that the choice of which
one or both authorities to apply is that of the non-Federal
interest. The Secretary is directed to accommodate the non-
Federal interest's choice. The Committee intends that the non-
Federal interest have the fullest opportunity to receive credit
under the project specific authority and under the general
credit authority, consistent with any requirements in the law.
Subsection (b) of the bill establishes a definition of
``water resources project'', as used in section 221. Section
221 of the 1970 Act uses the term water resources project, but
it is not defined. The Committee proposes to add a definition
because the Corps has taken a narrow view of what constitutes a
water resources project and does not include certain types of
projects currently being carried out in its civil works program
as water resources projects. This narrow interpretation by the
Corps precludes the application of the terms of section 221,
including the general credit authority, from being applied to
projects that the Corps does not include in its definition.
The Committee is particularly concerned that the Corps
specifically excludes environmental infrastructure programs or
projects from being considered water resources projects.
However, the Corps offers no explanation why such programs and
projects are not water resources projects in the context of
section 221. The environmental infrastructure programmatic
authorizations refer to ``water-related environmental
infrastructure and resource protection and development
projects''. Similar language appears in section 219 of WRDA
1992. These projects should fall under the broad concept of
``water resources projects''. The Corps' narrow interpretation
is inconsistent with Congressional intent and will be changed
by adding the definition.
Subsection (c) is a technical amendment to update language
in section 221.
Sec. 2002. Fish and wildlife mitigation
Section 2002 makes clarifying changes to section 906 of
WRDA 1986, as amended by WRDA 2007.
Subsection (a) conforms the mitigation requirements
contained in section 906 to Corps' policy guidance. Current
Corps policy requires mitigation for impacts to ecological
resources, including both aquatic and terrestrial resources.
The amendment would place the broad policy statement in
statute.
Subsection (a) also clarifies that the determination of
whether a proposed project will have negligible adverse impacts
on fish and wildlife is to be made without consideration of
proposed mitigation. Section 906 of WRDA 1986 requires that any
proposal for authorization of a water resources project must
contain either a specific plan to mitigate fish and wildlife
losses created by such project, or a determination that the
project will have negligible adverse impact on fish and
wildlife. The Corps' current interpretation of that requirement
can lead to less than full mitigation. The Corps conducts
mitigation ``to the extent incrementally justified'', or
sufficient such that ``only negligible adverse impacts
remain.''
Section 906 does not permit the implementation that the
Corps seeks. In the implementation guidance mitigation planning
statement, the Corps states that it will use the mitigation
planning process to ``compensate for non-negligible impacts to
aquatic and terrestrial resources to the extent incrementally
justified and to ensure that the recommended project will not
have more than negligible adverse impacts on ecological
resources.''
The Corps is correct that mitigation planning is to
compensate for ``non-negligible impacts''. If impacts are
negligible, no mitigation is required. The second part of the
policy is flawed in that there is no authority in section 906
to apply an incremental cost analysis that results in adverse
impacts remaining unmitigated. The third part of the policy is
also flawed in that the Corps misinterprets section 906 to
require mitigation up to the point that only non-negligible
impacts remain following compensatory measures.
Section 906 does not require a mitigation plan such that
only non-negligible impacts remain. Section 906 requires that
every water resources project contain either, ``(A) a
recommendation with a specific plan to mitigate fish and
wildlife losses created by such project, or (B) a determination
by the Secretary that such project will have negligible adverse
impact on fish and wildlife.'' These clauses are written in the
disjunctive for a purpose--impacts are mitigated, or the
impacts are negligible. The clauses were not written such that
mitigation should occur until the impacts are negligible. By
definition, and the Corp's implicit acknowledgement, the
impacts are not negligible or the Corps would not have
developed a mitigation plan. The content of the mitigation plan
is dictated by other provision of section 906 and other laws,
but the requirements of 906(d) are clear as to the preparation
of a mitigation plan.
Subsection (b) clarifies that the requirement that
mitigation plans for Corps projects comply with mitigation
requirements under the regulatory programs administered by the
Secretary is a minimum requirement. This conforms to Corps
policies to include a broader analysis of ecological impacts,
not only aquatic impacts, in developing mitigation plans.
Sec. 2003. Remote and subsistence harbors
This section modifies section 2006 of WRDA 2007 to correct
the current interpretation of that provision by the Corps.
Section 2006 of WRDA 2007 allowed for the selection of a harbor
and navigation project that is remote or provides subsistence
services without justifying the project solely on NED benefits.
In its implementation of section 2006, the Corps has
precluded its applicability to navigation projects being
studied and carried out under the authority of section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). This
interpretation is contrary to the intent of section 2006, and
is an unnecessarily narrow interpretation. In fact, many of the
navigation projects that were intended to be beneficiaries of
section 2006 are projects that would have been carried out
under section 107. Therefore, the Committee included language
to change the Corps' interpretation.
Sec. 2004. Revision of project partnership agreement
This section modifies section 2008 of WRDA 2007 to correct
the interpretation of that provision by the Corps of Engineers
as applied to the continuing authorities program.
Section 2008 provides that upon the increase in the maximum
amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a water
resources project or the total cost of a water resources
project, the Secretary is to revise the project partnership
agreement to take into account the change in Federal
participation.
However, while WRDA 2007 increased the per project limits
for section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 and section
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, the Corps is not applying
section 2008 and adjusting Federal participation in ongoing
projects being carried out under those authorities. In its
implementation guidance for the increased per-project limits,
the guidance states, ``The increased per-project limits only
apply to section 107 and section 14 projects that do not have
an executed PPA as of 7 November 2007.''
This guidance is directly contrary to the language in
section 2008. The amendment in section 2004 makes it clear that
the Corps' interpretation must be changed to conform to the
language in the law.
Sec. 2005. Independent peer review
This section amends section 2034 of WRDA 2007 to increase
transparency in the independent review process, and make
adjustments based on experience to date.
Subsection (a) adds a new paragraph to section 2034(b) to
increase public disclosure concerning the decision of the Chief
of Engineers to not conduct an independent review. Section 2034
requires independent reviews of certain types of project
studies. To date, the Corps has shown a tendency to have
independent review occur late in the study process for draft
feasibility reports. However, restricting reviews to decision
documents--such as draft or final feasibility reports--can
perpetuate deficiencies in the planning process that the
independent review process was intended to ameliorate.
Section 2034 allows the Chief of Engineers wide discretion
in when to conduct the review, but to avoid ``gotcha'' issues
arising for the first time at the end of the study process,
Congress included language calling for the Chief to make a
determination as to whether to conduct an independent review at
three specific times during the study. These times are: (1)
when the without-project conditions are identified (status
quo); (2) when the array of alternatives to be considered is
identified (i.e., what options will the Corps explore); and (3)
when the preferred alternative is identified (i.e., the likely
recommended project). The implementing guidance for section
2034 does not include these references. It does not appear that
responsible officials are making these deliberations. The
result can be that review comes too late in the process and
results in wasted time and money.
The significance of looking at whether an independent
review is called for earlier in the study process is
demonstrated by the ongoing study to deepen Boston Harbor,
Massachusetts.
The Final External Peer Review Report for Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement identified significant issues with
certain economic assumptions contained in the Corps' report.
Earlier review of underlying economic assumptions could have
allowed for corrections before the report was completed, and
saved many months and millions of dollars in conducting the
study. Because the review came near the end of the study, the
Corps and the project sponsor incurred costs and delays
unnecessarily.
The Committee intends that by requiring public disclosure
of the reasons for not conducting a review at the three
decision points required by law, the decision to conduct or
delay review until a time later in the study process will be a
deliberative one, rather than one by default.
Subsection (b) is intended to increase transparency in the
process. Section 2034(c) currently requires the Chief of
Engineers to notify the committees of jurisdiction of an
upcoming review prior to initiating the review. In all but a
very few instances, the Committee has not received these
notices. The intent of the requirement was to ensure that
Congressional supporters of the study under review were aware
of the review, and that information could be publicly
disclosed.
The failure to adhere to this simple notification
requirement is unacceptable. The amendment proposed by
subsection (b) reinforces the requirement that the committees
of jurisdiction be notified of upcoming reviews being conducted
under section 2034. In addition, the Chief of Engineers would
be required to make publicly available, including on the
Internet, information on the upcoming review. Information
provided to the Committee indicates that the public and in some
instances project sponsors are completely unaware of ongoing
reviews. This also is unacceptable. This lack of transparency
undercuts the credibility of the review process.
Subsection (c) adds transparency requirements for review
documents after they are completed. The Corps currently does
not routinely make completed independent review documents
publicly available. These are public documents paid for with
public funds. Therefore, subsection (c) amends section 2034 to
require the completed reviews to be provided to the committees
of jurisdiction and the public, including on the Internet,
within three days of the Chief of Engineers receiving the
report. Any responses to the review are also subject to the
same three-day availability requirement.
Sec. 2006. Safety assurance review
This section adds language to section 2035 of WRDA 2007
providing that the panels established to conduct safety
assurance reviews are not subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
Sec. 2007. Funding for harbor maintenance program
O&M costs for general navigation features (e.g., navigation
channels) are 100 percent Federal for work associated with
depths not greater than 45 feet and 50 percent Federal for
additional costs of maintaining depths greater than 45 feet.
The Federal share of operation and maintenance is
appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (Trust
Fund). The Trust Fund was created in 1986 and consists of
receipts from a 0.125 percent tax imposed on the value of cargo
loaded or unloaded at U.S. ports. On March 31, 1998, the
Supreme Court ruled that the tax on cargo that supports the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is unconstitutional insofar as it
applies to exports. The tax on imports continues to be
collected.
In the Committee's fiscal year (FY) 2011 views and
estimates, the Committee expressed its ongoing concern about
the growing surplus in the Trust Fund. At the end of FY 2010,
the estimated surplus in this fund is expected to be $6.347
billion. This fund is supplied by taxes paid by users of ports
and is meant to pay for harbor maintenance projects.
For years, more funds have been collected than have been
appropriated and a large surplus in the Trust Fund has
accumulated. For example, the FY 2011 President's Budget
proposes to transfer $764 million from the Trust Fund to the
Corps' O&M account. This problem has not been caused by a lack
of needed port maintenance dredging. To the contrary, the Corps
has had the capability to execute a far greater amount of work
on nationally significant water projects authorized by
Congress. The constraint on the performance of this valuable
work has been the limited level of funding appropriated from
the Trust Fund. The result has been unnecessary cost increases,
significantly delayed completion dates, and delays in realizing
transportation savings. At a minimum, the Committee supports
annual appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
for authorized purposes consistent with annual collections to
the Trust Fund.
Section 2007 directs that the total budget resources made
available from the Trust Fund each fiscal year pursuant to
section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to expenditures from the Trust Fund) be equal to the level of
receipts plus interest credited to the Trust Fund for that
fiscal year. Such amounts may be used only for harbor
maintenance programs described in section 9505(c) of such Code.
The intent of this section is to ensure that funds collected on
an annual basis from the users of the nation's ports be fully
utilized to meet the purposes for which they were collected--
addressing the nation's backlog of harbor maintenance projects,
including maintenance dredging needs.
Sec. 2008. Funding to process permits
This section amends section 214 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541) (WRDA 2000), as amended,
to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept
funds from non-Federal public entities for the consideration of
permits under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act of 1899.
Since its enactment, the Committee has been carefully
monitoring the implementation of the section 214 authority.
While this authority is very popular for those public entities
that have used it, the Committee has expressed concern that
allowing a regulated entity to contribute to the cost of its
regulator has the potential to affect the objectivity of that
regulatory. This would be contrary to the intent of the Clean
Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and contrary
to the intent of Congress in enacting the section 214
authority. In recognition of this concern, Chairman James L.
Oberstar requested the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to review the Corps' implementation of the section 214
program. In May, 2007, GAO released a report, entitled ``Waters
and Wetlands, Corps of Engineers Needs to Ensure that Permit
Decisions Made Using Funds from Nonfederal Public Entities Are
Transparent and Impartial'' (GAO-07-478) that demonstrated
significant variability on the implementation of the section
214 program among the Corps District offices that had
experience with the program, and recommended a series of
measures that should be implemented by Corps District offices
to avoid any potential conflict of interests in carrying out
its responsibilities. Several of the concerns raised by GAO are
addressed in the amendments to section 214 made by this
section.
First, this section amends section 214(a) to clarify that
the Secretary may only utilize this authority for the
consideration and review of permits related to projects for a
public purpose. The May 2007 GAO report noted that one Corps
District had allowed a public entity to request the Corps
review a private company's permit application under section
214. This is contrary to the intent of the section 214 program,
which was created to allow non-Federal public entities to
utilize the program to expedite the review of permits for
projects for a public purpose (e.g., the construction of port
facilities or public water supply projects). This provision
clarifies that the Corps may not utilize the section 214
authority to consider and review permit applications for
projects or activities that primarily benefit private
individuals or companies.
Second, this section adds a new subsection (b) to implement
a ``higher-order review'' authority under the section 214
program to require the Corps to have all permits considered and
reviewed under this authority reviewed by a more senior Corps
official. This recommendation is consistent with the findings
of the May 2007 GAO report, and consistent with the Corps'
implementation guidance for the section 214 program. The Corps
is directed to include a notation that a higher order review
was undertaken in its public disclosure of permits reviewed
under this authority. In addition, funds contributed under
section 214 by non-Federal public entities cannot be used to
carry out the higher-order review requirements of this
subsection.
In addition, this section adds a new subsection (d) that
directs the Secretary to make all final permit decisions
carried out using section 214 funds available to the public,
including on the Internet. This recommendation is consistent
with the findings of the May 2007 GAO report; however, in a
subsequent report, dated February 19, 2010 (GAO-10-385R), GAO
noted that the Corps had ``fallen short in two significant
oversight areas'', including improving the transparency of
decision making to the public by clearly posting public notices
of funding decisions on district Internet sites.
Finally, this section extends the authority for the
Secretary to utilize the section 214 program through December
31, 2016. The Committee will continue to oversee the
implementation of the accountability measures called for by the
GAO and others to ensure that use of the section 214 program
does not compromise the integrity of the regulatory process,
and achieves the goals of expediting the permitting review
process for both those parties that utilize the 214 authority,
and those that do not.
Sec. 2009. Project modifications for improvement of environment
This section amends section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the
shores of publicly owned property'' of August 13, 1946, to
increase the maximum Federal participation in each project from
$3,000,000 to $5,000,000.
Sec. 2010. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration
This section amends section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the
shores of publicly owned property'' of August 13, 1946, to
increase the maximum Federal participation in each project from
$3,000,000 to $5,000,000.
Sec. 2011. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric
facilities
Section 2011 amends section 314 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640) (WRDA 1990) to designate
all activities performed by personnel under the direction of
the Secretary in connection with the operation and maintenance
of navigation projects or navigational infrastructure,
including floodgates, locks, and dams, at Corps water resources
projects, as inherently governmental functions.
In 2008, the Committee received testimony describing a
failed effort by the previous administration to privatize
approximately 2,000 full-time positions at more than 230 locks
and dams, at an estimated cost of tens of millions of dollars.
The Committee recognizes the importance of the nation's 12,000
miles of commercially navigable channels across the United
States to its economy, homeland security, and national
security, as well as the unnecessary risks in moving operation
and maintenance activities at such facilities to outside
contractors. Any accident or incident at a lock or dam
structure on the nation's inland system could seriously
jeopardize the nation's economy or its ability to quickly
respond to threats to homeland or national security. To
preserve the operation of these vital transportation corridors,
the Committee strongly supports designation of personnel under
the direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation
and maintenance of such projects and infrastructure as
inherently governmental.
Sec. 2012. Repeal
This section repeals section 211 of WRDA 2000 (31 U.S.C.
6505 note; 114 Stat. 2592).
Sec. 2013. Cost estimates for feasibility reports
This section amends section 905(a) of WRDA 1986 to require
the Secretary to provide additional information to Congress on
the estimated costs of recommended projects based on three
potential construction and funding scenarios--construction
under optimal funding levels, a 50 percent delay in
construction of the project, and a 100 percent delay in the
construction of the project.
In recent years, the Committee has become concerned with
the frequency and scope of proposed increases for the maximum
costs of authorized water resources projects. Section 902 of
WRDA 1986 provides statutory authority for the Secretary to
increase the maximum cost of a project for: (1) modifications
which do not materially alter the scope or functions of the
project as authorized (up to 20 percent of the statutory total
cost of the project) and (2) changes in construction costs
applied to unconstructed features as indicated by engineering
or other appropriate cost indexes. However, in recent years,
the Committee has learned of, or has received requests to raise
the maximum cost of authorized projects well in excess of the
statutory ``20 percent plus inflation'' adjustment currently
authorized in law.
The Corps has stated that a reason for many of these cost
increases is that projects often do not receive annual
appropriations for construction consistent with the capability
of the Corps to carry out a project, and this lack of
predicable funding has caused construction delays and
inefficiencies and a corresponding increase in the cost of
projects. The Committee recognizes that a lack of predicable
funding at capability can increase the total cost of a project;
however, this reason does not adequately address similar
requests for cost increases (in excess of the 20 percent plus
inflation) for projects that have only recently initiated
construction, such as projects that were authorized in WRDA
2007.
The Committee believes that additional information on the
short-term and long-term construction costs of recommended
projects will benefit Congress. For example, by providing clear
information on the potential impacts that funding project
construction at below capability will have on the total cost of
a project, Congress will be more informed about current and
future funding needs necessary to carry out ongoing and future
water resource development projects.
The Committee intends that the Corps' estimates of the cost
of a project, based on either a 50 percent or 100 percent
increase in the period for implementation of the recommended
plan, be provided solely for informational purposes. The
Committee does not intend for this information to affect the
economic justification of a recommended project, including any
potential modification of the benefit-cost analysis currently
undertaken by the Corps in recommending a project to Congress
for authorization.
Sec. 2014. Mitigation Status Report
This section amends section 2036(b) of WRDA 2007. Section
2036 requires an annual report to the committees of
jurisdiction on the status of mitigation required for projects
of the Corps. The report is also to include information on the
required consultations among the Corps, Federal agencies, and
the States on the success of mitigation efforts.
The report was not submitted for 2008; and the reports
submitted for 2009 and 2010 were late and not fully responsive
to the requirements of section 2036. The 2010 status report,
while improved, did not fulfill the statutory requirements. The
reports continue a deficiency of the first report in that the
Corps acknowledges that ``there are different methodologies
utilized by Corps districts to calculate percent of mitigation
complete.'' The Corps does not identify the specific method
used for any of the projects.
Using differing methods to determine the amount of
mitigation completed eliminates the ability to compare the
relative progress of the Corps in meeting its mitigation
requirements, and greatly diminishes the usefulness of the
information. Section 2014 would require the Corps to use
uniform methods for determining mitigation status that include
both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
It is also of note that the status reports submitted to
date do not include information on the required consultations.
The information provided to the Committee raises serious
questions about whether the consultations required under
section 906(d)(4)(B) of WRDA 1986 are in fact occurring.
Section 2014 addresses this concern by requiring that the
status report include the specific dates and participants in
these consultation meetings.
Sec. 2015. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods
This section addresses the use of American-made iron,
steel, and manufactured goods in civil works construction
projects.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska
This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure
for the project for navigation, Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska,
being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. Sec. 577), shall be $7,000,000.
Sec. 3002. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona
This section modifies the project for flood control,
Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona, authorized by section
101(a)(4) of WRDA 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section
303 of the WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), section 302 of WRDA 2000
(114 Stat. 2600), and section 3008 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat.
1107), to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a
total cost of $55,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$50,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,400,000.
Sec. 3003. Rio de Flag, Arizona
This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized by
section 101(b)(3) of WRDA 2000 (114 Stat. 2576) and modified by
section 3007 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1107), to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$77,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $50,000,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $27,000,000.
Sec. 3004. Tres Rios, Arizona
This section modifies the project for ecosystem
restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, authorized by section
101(b)(4) of WRDA 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$230,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $149,500,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $80,500,000.
Sec. 3005. Russian River project, Sonoma County, California
This section modifies the project for flood control, water
conservation, and related purposes in the Russian River basin,
California, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act
of 1950 (64 Stat. 177), and the project for Russian River, Dry
Creek, California, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1192), to: (1) require that the
Secretary review the biological opinion on the water supply,
flood control, and channel maintenance operations conducted by
the Corps, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino
County Russian River Flood Control District, as transmitted by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
September 24, 2008; and (2) if the Secretary determines that
the project is feasible, to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project at a total cost of $92,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $59,800,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $32,200,000.
Sec. 3006. South Sacramento County streams, California
This section modifies the project for flood control,
environmental restoration, and recreation, South Sacramento
County streams, California, authorized by section 101(a)(8) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) (WRDA
1999), to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a
total cost of $104,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$67,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,800,000.
Sec. 3007. Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado
This section modifies section 116 of the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (123
Stat. 608) by striking ``Colorado Department of Natural
Resources is authorized'' and inserting ``Colorado Department
of Natural Resources, or its assignee, is authorized''.
Sec. 3008. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Texas
This section modifies section 5056(f) of WRDA 2007 (121
Stat. 1213) to authorize appropriations for this program
through 2015.
Sec. 3009. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia
This section modifies the project for flood control,
Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia, authorized by
section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688; 49 Stat.
1574) and modified by section 301(a)(4) of WRDA 1996 (110 Stat.
3707) and section 309 of WRDA 1999 (113 Stat. 301), to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a Federal
cost of $8,100,000, in accordance with the post authorization
change report dated June 29, 1998.
Sec. 3010. Kissimmee River restoration, Florida
This section modifies the project for ecosystem
restoration, Kissimmee River Restoration, Florida, authorized
by section 101(8) of WRDA 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), to authorize
the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$852,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $426,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $426,000,000.
Sec. 3011. Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida
This section modifies the project for navigation and
related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida,
authorized by section 101(b)(8) of WRDA 1999 (113 Stat. 279),
to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total
cost of $15,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$8,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,500,000.
Sec. 3012. Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia
This section modifies the project for navigation, Savannah
Harbor expansion, Georgia, authorized by section 101(b)(9) of
WRDA 1999 (113 Stat. 279), to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project at a total cost of $675,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $405,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $270,000,000.
Sec. 3013. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project,
Illinois
Subsection (a) provides additional authority to the
Secretary for the implementation of the projects for control of
aquatic invasive species in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Illinois, authorized by section 3061 of WRDA 2007 (121
Stat. 1121).
Subsection (b) amends section 3061(d) of WRDA 2007 (121
Stat. 1121) by directing the Secretary, in carrying out the
ongoing feasibility study to prevent the spread of aquatic
nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Basins, to include a fully developed analysis of hydrologic
separation of the basins, with a focus on the potential issues,
costs, and benefits associated with hydrologic separation in
the vicinity of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The intent
of this language is: (1) to direct the Corps to prioritize
completion of an initial phase of this study that focuses on
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal as a potential pathway for
the movement of aquatic invasive species, such as the bighead
and silver carp, between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Basins; and (2) to direct the Corps to include in its
recommendation to Congress information on the potential costs,
benefits, and other associated issues that would result from
undertaking a hydrologic separation of the Basins in the
vicinity of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Sec. 3014. Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky
This section modifies the project for navigation, Lower
Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 and 53, Illinois and Kentucky,
authorized by section 3(a)(6) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-676) (WRDA 1988), to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total
cost of $1,991,000,000.
Sec. 3015. Wood River levee system reconstruction, Madison County,
Illinois
This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction, Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison
County, Illinois, authorized by section 1001(20) of WRDA 2007
(121 Stat. 1053), to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project at a total cost of $120,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $78,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $42,000,000.
Sec. 3016. Little Calumet River, Indiana
This section modifies the project for flood control, Little
Calumet River, Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of WRDA
1986 (100 Stat. 4115) and modified by section 127 of the Energy
and Water Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total
cost of $275,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$206,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $69,000,000.
Sec. 3017. Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland
This section modifies the project for navigation, Rhodes
Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland, being carried out under
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577), to increase the maximum amount of the Federal share to
$7,000,000.
Sec. 3018. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts
This section modifies section 522 of WRDA 2000 (114 Stat.
2656) by striking ``draft evaluation report of the New England
District Engineer entitled `Phase I Muddy River Master Plan',
dated June 2000'' and inserting ``Final Decision Document and
Environmental Assessment Report of the New England District
Engineer entitled `Muddy River Flood Control and Ecosystem
Restoration, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts', dated
September 2003, at a total cost of $79,200,000''.
Sec. 3019. Ada, Minnesota
This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure
for the project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River,
Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be
$10,600,000.
Sec. 3020. Montevideo, Minnesota
This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure
for the project for flood damage reduction, Montevideo,
Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $10,000,000.
Sec. 3021. Two Harbors, Minnesota
This section modifies section 3101(b) of WRDA 2007 (121
Stat. 1133) by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting
``$14,000,000''.
Sec. 3022. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri
This section modifies the project for flood control, Blue
River basin, Kansas City, Missouri, authorized by section
101(a)(18) of WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$45,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,125,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,375,000.
Sec. 3023. Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey
This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure
for the project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey, being
carried out under section 1135 of WRDA 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a),
shall be $10,000,000.
Sec. 3024. Ocean Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey
This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure
for the project for emergency streambank protection, Ocean
Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey, being carried out under section
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), shall be
$4,500,000.
Sec. 3025. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York
This section modifies the project for shoreline protection,
authorized by section 554 of WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), as
amended by section 3122 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1139), to
increase the project authorization to $27,000,000.
Sec. 3026. Spring Creek, New York
This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure
for the project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Spring Creek, New York, being carried out under
section 1135 of WRDA 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be
$6,000,000.
Sec. 3027. Hocking River basin, Monday Creek, Ohio
This section modifies section 1001(37)(B)(iii) of WRDA 2007
(121 Stat. 1055) by striking ``$1,270,000'' and inserting
``$12,000,000''.
Sec. 3028. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem
restoration, Oregon and Washington
This section modifies section 536(g) of the WRDA of 2000
(114 Stat. 2662) to increase the authorization of
appropriations for this authority to $45,000,000.
Sec. 3029. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas
This section modifies the project for navigation and
ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas,
authorized by section 1001(40) of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1056) to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total
cost of $447,604,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$183,827,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $263,777,000.
Sec. 3030. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas
This section modifies the project for flood control,
Trinity River and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2
of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction,
repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 2, 1945, and
modified by section 5141 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1253), to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total
cost of $882,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$573,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $308,700,000.
Sec. 3031. Houston-Galveston navigation channels, Texas
This section modifies the project for navigation and
environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation
Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of WRDA 1996
(110 Stat. 3666), to authorize the Secretary to extend the
boundaries of the Galveston channel approximately 2600 feet
beyond Pier 38, if the Secretary determines that the extension
is feasible.
Sec. 3032. Project reauthorization
This section renews the authorization for the Vincennes,
Indiana portion of the project for flood control, Wabash River
basin, Illinois and Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the
Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649).
Sec. 3033. Project deauthorizations
Subsection (a) deauthorizes a portion of the following
projects for navigation: Potomac River, Washington Channel,
District of Columbia; Chicago Harbor, Illinois; Ipswich River,
Massachusetts; Menemsha Creek, Massachusetts; and Block Island
Harbor of Refuge, Rhode Island.
Subsection (b) deauthorizes 12 specific, currently
authorized but unconstructed projects or elements of projects,
which were identified as eligible for deauthorization by the
Corps, pursuant to section 1001 of WRDA 1986, as amended.
Section 1001 of WRDA 1986 directs the Corps to provide Congress
with a list of unconstructed projects, or unconstructed
separable elements of projects, which have been authorized, but
have not received obligation of Federal funding for the full
five fiscal years preceding the transmittal of the list. All 12
projects identified in this subsection meet these criteria, and
were identified as eligible for deauthorization by the Corps.
The budgetary impact, according to the Corps, of deauthorizing
and not constructing the 12 projects in subsection (b) is a
reduction of future Federal spending of $871.8 million.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 4001. Hollis, Alaska
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements, Hollis, Alaska.
Sec. 4002. Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona.
Sec. 4003. Lower Santa Cruz River, Casa Grande, Arizona
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and related water resource purposes for the
Lower Santa Cruz River study area, Casa Grande, Arizona.
Sec. 4004. Maricopa County, Arizona
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, recreation, and
related water resource purposes, including nonstructural
solutions, for Maricopa County, Arizona.
Sec. 4005. Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties,
Arkansas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigation, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration,
bank stabilization, and related water resource purposes for the
Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties, Arkansas.
Sec. 4006. Oil Trough, Arkansas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Oil Trough, Arkansas.
Sec. 4007. Randolph County, Arkansas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Randolph County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4008. Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements for Berkeley Marina, Berkeley,
California.
Sec. 4009. Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration and flood damage reduction for
Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California.
Sec. 4010. Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration between Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos
Bay, Long Beach, California.
Sec. 4011. Lodi Lake, Lodi, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and streambank stabilization for Lodi Lake,
Lodi, California.
Sec. 4012. Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigation improvements for the Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal
Canal, Oakland, California.
Sec. 4013. Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for Noyo
Harbor District, Noyo, California.
Sec. 4014. Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements, flood damage reduction, shoreline
protection, environmental restoration, and related water
resource purposes for Port of San Francisco, San Francisco,
California.
Sec. 4015. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for
Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.
Sec. 4016. Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto,
California. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on
a watershed basis.
Sec. 4017. Sacramento Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento,
California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction in the Sacramento Regional Sanitation
District, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 4018. San Pablo Bay, Hercules, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements for San Pablo Bay, Hercules,
California.
Sec. 4019. Stockton, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
navigation channel deepening for Stockton, California.
Sec. 4020. Tijuana River environmental restoration, San Diego,
California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, water supply,
water quality, recreation, and other water-related issues
including the impacts of water flows from Mexico for the
Tijuana River basin, San Diego, California.
Sec. 4021. Tijuana River wetlands restoration, San Diego County,
California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration and wetland restoration along the
Tijuana River, San Diego County, California.
Sec. 4022. Ventura River, Ventura County, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Ventura River, Ventura County, California.
Sec. 4023. Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for Willowbrook, Los Angeles County,
California. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on
a watershed basis.
Sec. 4024. Fountain Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a sediment
impact analysis study to determine the sediment transport
parameters for Fountain Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado.
Sec. 4025. Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado. In
carrying out this study, the Secretary shall review the
feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on a
watershed basis.
Sec. 4026. Holly Pond and Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
environmental restoration for Holly Pond and Norotan River,
Stamford, Connecticut.
Sec. 4027. Housatonic River, New Milford, Connecticut
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction along the Housatonic River, New Milford,
Connecticut.
Sec. 4028. Long Island Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements for Long Island Sound and Mill River,
Stamford, Connecticut.
Sec. 4029. Meriden, Connecticut
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Meriden, Connecticut. In carrying out this
study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying
out a project or projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4030. South Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for the South Cove, Old Saybrook,
Connecticut.
Sec. 4031. West River, New Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection, storm damage reduction, including a
review of bulkhead condition for West River, New Haven Harbor,
West Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 4032. Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for enhanced
public access and recreational opportunities on Army Corps of
Engineers projects in the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland,
and Virginia.
Sec. 4033. Washington, District of Columbia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, including green or low-impact development
technologies, for Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 4034. Lake County, Florida
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and environmental protection, Lake County,
Florida.
Sec. 4035. Marion County, Florida
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water
supply, Marion County, Florida.
Sec. 4036. Miami, Florida
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Miami, Florida.
Sec. 4037. Oakland Park, Florida
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Oakland Park, Florida.
Sec. 4038. Riviera Beach, Florida
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction and shoreline protection
for Riviera Beach, Florida.
Sec. 4039. South Daytona, Florida
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water
resource purposes for South Daytona, Florida.
Sec. 4040. Tampa, Florida
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Tampa,
Florida.
Sec. 4041. Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration, recreation, and
related water resource purposes for Peavine Creek, Decatur,
Georgia.
Sec. 4042. Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for Richland Creek, Lawrenceville,
Georgia.
Sec. 4043. Study for water supply, Georgia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study of
municipal and industrial water supply for the State of Georgia.
The Secretary shall complete the study not later than two years
following the first obligation of funds for the study.
Sec. 4044. Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville,
Georgia.
Sec. 4045. Agat and Merizo, Guam
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Agat and Merizo,
Guam.
Sec. 4046. Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction along Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo,
Hawaii. In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall utilize,
to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the
formulation of the project for flood damage reduction, Waiakea
Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii, previously initiated
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s).
Sec. 4047. Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, water supply, and
related water resource purposes for the Waialua-Kaiaka
watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
Sec. 4048. Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4049. Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Carpenter
Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois.
Sec. 4050. Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for the Des
Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois.
Sec. 4051. Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Ferson-Otter
Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois.
Sec. 4052. Middle Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of developing a program for
environmental restoration for the Middle Mississippi River,
Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 4053. North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration and related water resource purposes
for the North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4054. River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago
River, Chicago, Illinois
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration and shoreline protection for River
Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago River,
Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4055. Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago,
Illinois
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and shoreline
protection for Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago
River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4056. Village of Skokie, Illinois
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for the Village of Skokie, Illinois.
Sec. 4057. Bowman Creek, South Bend, Indiana
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for Bowman Creek, South Bend,
Indiana.
Sec. 4058. Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction, and related water resource purposes for the
Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 4059. Burlington, Iowa
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Burlington,
Iowa.
Sec. 4060. Beneficial use of dredged material, Louisiana and
Mississippi
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of utilizing the Federal hopper
dredge Wheeler, as part of routine testing and use under its
ready reserve status, to support projects for the beneficial
reuse of material dredged from federally maintained waterways
in connection with the project for protecting, preserving, and
restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem and the project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal
Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties,
Mississippi.
Sec. 4061. Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana. In carrying out the study, the Secretary may include
elements of the report prepared by the non-Federal interest for
Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, if the Secretary
determines that such elements are feasible.
Sec. 4062. LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties,
Louisiana
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood
control and improvement of the Lower Mississippi River, Bonnet
Carre Spillway, authorized by section 1 of the Act of May 15,
1928 (45 Stat. 534), to add environmental restoration as a
project purpose. In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall
review operational and structural changes to the project to
restore the LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John
Counties, Louisiana.
Sec. 4063. Ruth Canal freshwater diversion, Vermilion, Louisiana
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study of
the project for the improvement of Bayou Teche and the
Vermilion River, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the
Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 641), and the
project for flood protection in the Teche-Vermilion basins,
Louisiana, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act
of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420), to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and water
supply, Ruth Canal, Vermilion, Louisiana.
Sec. 4064. Anacostia River watershed, Prince George's County, Maryland
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for the Anacostia River watershed, Prince
George's County, Maryland.
Sec. 4065. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline study, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia
This section directs the Secretary, in conducting the study
for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia, being carried out under the Committee Resolution of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United
States Senate, adopted May 23, 2001, to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects on Federally-owned
property for shoreline protection, environmental restoration,
and improvement of water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.
Sec. 4066. Dredged material disposal, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements and dredged material disposal at Cox
Creek Dredged Material Disposal Site for Baltimore Harbor,
Maryland.
Sec. 4067. Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island recreation and public access,
Maryland
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the Mid-Chesapeake Bay
Island project for enhanced public access and recreational
opportunities on Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland, as
authorized by section 1001 of this Act.
Sec. 4068. Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
environmental restoration, flood damage reduction, and
stormwater management for Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine.
Sec. 4069. Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Fishing and
Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine.
Sec. 4070. Southern Maine/New Hampshire dredged material disposal
study, Maine and New Hampshire
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for
southern Maine and New Hampshire.
Sec. 4071. Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and
Essex Counties, Massachusetts
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water
resource purposes, Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds,
Middlesex and Essex Counties, Massachusetts. In carrying out
this study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of
carrying out a project or projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4072. Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water
resource purposes for Hoosic River watershed, North Adams,
Massachusetts. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on
a watershed basis.
Sec. 4073. Mystic River watershed, Massachusetts
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for the Mystic River watershed,
Massachusetts.
Sec. 4074. Quequechan River, Fall River, Massachusetts
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration, recreation, and related water
resource purposes for the Quequechan River, Fall River,
Massachusetts.
Sec. 4075. Clinton River, Clinton Township, Michigan
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water
resource purposes for Clinton River, Clinton Township,
Michigan.
Sec. 4076. Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan
This section directs the Secretary, in carrying out the
review under the authority of section 216 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) of the project for flood control,
Flint River, Michigan, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311), to include a review of
Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.
Sec. 4077. Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and related water resource purposes for Upper
Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan.
Sec. 4078. Amory, Mississippi
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Amory, Mississippi.
Sec. 4079. Coastal Mississippi ecosystem restoration, Mississippi
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
environmental restoration and related water resource purposes
for coastal Mississippi. In carrying out this study, the
Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying out a
project or projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4080. Fulton, Mississippi
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Fulton, Mississippi.
Sec. 4081. Gulfport, Mississippi
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements, Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 4082. Lucedale, Mississippi
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, water supply, recreation, and related water
resource purposes for Lucedale, Mississippi.
Sec. 4083. Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes County, Mississippi
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Magby Creek and Vernon Branch in Lowndes
County, Mississippi.
Sec. 4084. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood
protection and other purposes in the Blue River basin, vicinity
of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, authorized by section 201
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (80 Stat. 1409), to include
additional flood damage reduction, environmental restoration,
and recreational measures, Kansas City, Missouri.
Sec. 4085. Little Blue River, Jackson County, Missouri
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for stream
bank stabilization for Little Blue River, Jackson County,
Missouri.
Sec. 4086. St. Louis, Missouri
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, especially examining the floodwall pump
station, for St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4087. Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 4088. New Hampshire
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
improvement of water quality, restoration of degraded habitat,
environmental restoration, water supply, and remediation of
potential impacts of climate change located within the State of
New Hampshire. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on
a watershed basis and is directed to work in collaboration with
all relevant Federal and non-Federal entities, including State
and local governments, nonprofit organizations, academia, and
the general public interested in participating in this study.
Sec. 4089. Piscataqua River, New Hampshire
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
evaluate sediment and nutrient pollution in the Piscataqua
River system to determine the feasibility of carrying out a
project for environmental restoration and water quality for the
Piscataqua River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 4090. Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New
Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction, shoreline protection, environmental
restoration, and related water resource purposes for Barnegat
Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey. In
carrying out this study, the Secretary shall review the
feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on a
watershed basis.
Sec. 4091. Beverly, New Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection, including consideration of a gabion wall,
for Beverly, New Jersey.
Sec. 4092. Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection, including consideration of floating wave
attenuators, for Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey.
Sec. 4093. Haddon Township, New Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Haddon Township, New Jersey.
Sec. 4094. Rahway River watershed, New Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water
resource purposes for Rahway River watershed, New Jersey. In
carrying out this study, the Secretary shall review the
feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on a
watershed basis.
Sec. 4095. Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction for Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and
Nutley, New Jersey.
Sec. 4096. Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigation, environmental restoration, and recreation for the
Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey.
Sec. 4097. Township of Ocean, New Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection for the Township of
Ocean, New Jersey.
Sec. 4098. Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4099. Dona Ana, New Mexico
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of adding hydropower to existing
irrigation canals for Dona Ana, New Mexico.
Sec. 4100. Hidalgo County, New Mexico
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Hidalgo County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4101. Otero County, New Mexico
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Otero County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4102. Valencia County, New Mexico
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Valencia County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4103. Glen Cove, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Glen Cove,
New York.
Sec. 4104. Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm
damage reduction, shoreline protection, and environmental
restoration for Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York.
Sec. 4105. Kill van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm
damage reduction, shoreline protection, and environmental
restoration for Kill Van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island,
New York.
Sec. 4106. Mariners Marsh and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for Mariners Marsh and Arlington
Marsh, Staten Island, New York.
Sec. 4107. New York, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct an inventory
of bulkheads and seawalls constructed around the city of New
York, New York, including the boroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx,
Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens. In conducting the
inventory, the Secretary shall assess the condition of the
bulkheads and seawalls and the need for rehabilitation or
modification of the bulkheads and seawalls. If the Secretary
determines that an assessed bulkhead or seawall presents an
imminent and substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary
may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate that risk.
Subsection (f) authorizes $7,000,000 to carry out this section.
Sec. 4108. Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Norton Basin
Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York.
Sec. 4109. Queens, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection, Queens, New York,
between 116th and 156th Streets.
Sec. 4110. Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Rockaway Beach
Seawall, Rockaway, New York.
Sec. 4111. Roosevelt Island, East River, New York, New York
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Roosevelt Island,
East River, New York, New York.
Sec. 4112. Charlotte, North Carolina
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
environmental restoration in support of the Surface Water
Improvement and Management Initiative for Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Sec. 4113. Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration, recreation, and related water
resource purposes, Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina.
Sec. 4114. Missouri River and tributaries, South and Central North
Dakota, North Dakota
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for the Missouri River and tributaries, South
and Central North Dakota, North Dakota.
Sec. 4115. Big Creek watershed, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Big Creek
watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the Secretary
shall review the feasibility of carrying out a project or
projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4116. Brandywine Creek watershed, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Brandywine
Creek watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the
Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying out a
project or projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4117. Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio.
Sec. 4118. Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed,
Summit County, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water
resource purposes, Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas
River watershed, Summit County, Ohio. In carrying out this
study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying
out a project or projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4119. Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Euclid Creek
watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the Secretary
shall review the feasibility of carrying out a project or
projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4120. Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration, streambank erosion, and
sedimentation control for Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio.
Sec. 4121. Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for the Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio.
Sec. 4122. Ohio River, Ohio
This section amends section 4070 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat.
1183) by striking ``Ohio River'' and inserting ``Ohio River and
tributaries''.
Sec. 4123. Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and
Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
Sec. 4124. Stark County, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Stark
County, Ohio.
Sec. 4125. Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Tinkers
Creek watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the
Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying out a
project or projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4126. Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for the Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.
Sec. 4127. West Creek watershed, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for West Creek
watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the Secretary
shall review the feasibility of carrying out a project or
projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4128. Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Yellow Creek
and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio.
Sec. 4129. Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings,
Oregon.
Sec. 4130. Oregon Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters, Oregon
This section directs the Secretary to conduct an inventory
of federally constructed navigation jetties and breakwaters in
the State of Oregon. In conducting the inventory, the Secretary
shall assess the condition of the navigation jetties and
breakwaters and the need for rehabilitation or modification of
the jetties and breakwaters. If the Secretary determines that
an assessed jetty or breakwater presents an imminent and
substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out
measures to prevent or mitigate that risk. Subsection (f)
authorizes $7,000,000 to carry out this section.
Sec. 4131. Port Orford, Oregon
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigational improvements with examination of navigational
breakwaters for Port Orford, Oregon.
Sec. 4132. Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a multipurpose
project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration for Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania. In carrying
out the study, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent
practicable, any work undertaken in the formulation of a
project for environmental restoration, Buhl Lake, Sharon,
Pennsylvania, previously initiated under section 206 of WRDA
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679).
Sec. 4133. Delaware River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration for the Delaware
River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In carrying
out this study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of
carrying out a project or projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4134. Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration and water quality for Elk Creek,
Meadville, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4135. Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, focusing on the Mill Creek Drift Catcher, for
Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4136. Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for the Susquehanna River,
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4137. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction
This section amends section 4077 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat.
1184) in subsection (a) by striking ``Mahoning River basin,
Pennsylvania'' and inserting ``Mahoning River basin,
Pennsylvania, the Monongahela River basin, Pennsylvania''; and
in subsection (b), by striking ``Shaler Township'' and
inserting ``Shaler Township, Hampton Township, Harmar
Township''.
Sec. 4138. Guayama, Puerto Rico
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction for Guayama, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4139. Rincon, Puerto Rico
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and shoreline protection for the Municipality
of Rincon, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4140. Providence, Rhode Island
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood
damage reduction and related water resource purposes for the
rivers in Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 4141. South Carolina
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
improvement of water quality, restoration of degraded habitat,
environmental restoration, water supply, and remediation of
potential impacts of climate change located within the eight
watersheds located within the State of South Carolina. In
carrying out this study, the Secretary shall review the
feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on a
watershed basis and is directed to work in collaboration with
all relevant Federal and non-Federal entities, including State
and local governments, nonprofit organizations, academia, and
the general public interested in participating in this study.
Sec. 4142. James River, South Dakota
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for channel
restoration and improvements on the James River, South Dakota,
authorized by section 401(b) of WRDA 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) to
add ecosystem restoration and watershed improvements as project
purposes.
Sec. 4143. Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration for Station Camp Creek, Gallatin,
Tennessee.
Sec. 4144. Brazos River, Texas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study
assessing the long-term impacts of water use, withdrawal,
recirculation, and downstream impacts on the Whitney Lake
Reservoir, Texas.
Sec. 4145. Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs, Texas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs,
Texas.
Sec. 4146. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Barbours Cut), Texas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study of
the feasibility of modifying the Barbours Cut element of the
project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-
Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section
101(a)(30) of WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), to a depth of 45
feet.
Sec. 4147. Port of Galveston, Texas
This section directs the Secretary to 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, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of WRDA 1996
(110 Stat. 3666).
Sec. 4148. Simsboro Aquifer, City of Bastrop, Texas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of utilizing the Simsboro Aquifer for
water supply for the City of Bastrop, Texas.
Sec. 4149. Navasota River watershed, Grimes County, Texas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water
resource purposes for the Navasota River watershed, Grimes
County, Texas.
Sec. 4150. Rio Grande basin, Texas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and water supply
for the Rio Grande basin, Texas.
Sec. 4151. Roma, Texas
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for Roma, Texas.
Sec. 4152. Cottonwood Heights, Utah
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
streambank stabilization for Cottonwood Heights, Utah.
Sec. 4153. Emery Town, Utah
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a
comprehensive study of existing water supply resources for
Emery Town, Utah.
Sec. 4154. Big Sandy River reallocation study, Virginia and West
Virginia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of reallocating water storage at 6
reservoirs to optimize benefits for multiple-purpose use in the
Big Sandy River watershed, Virginia and West Virginia.
Sec. 4155. Buckroe and Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection for Buckroe and Grandview Beaches,
Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4156. Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, including offshore
breakwaters, for Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4157. Hampton, Virginia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
hurricane and storm damage reduction and shoreline protection
for Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4158. James River watershed, Virginia
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the water resource needs, including current and
projected future needs, for the James River watershed,
Virginia. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on
a watershed basis.
Sec. 4159. Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
navigation channel deepening for Elliott Bay, Seattle,
Washington.
Sec. 4160. Green River, Kent, Washington
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction for the Green River, Kent, Washington.
Sec. 4161. Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for
environmental quality and environmental restoration, especially
related to salmon and steelhead recovery issues, for the
Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington. In carrying
out this study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of
carrying out a project or projects on a watershed basis.
Sec. 4162. Lake Michigan shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection for the Lake Michigan shoreline, City of
Cudahy, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 5001. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection
program
This section amends section 510 of WRDA 1996, as amended,
to explicitly provide for in-kind credit, to authorize certain
Federal funds (not provided by the Secretary) be credited
towards the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, to
limit the maximum Federal expenditure for any individual
project at a single locality to $10,000,000, and to expand the
geographic scope of this authority to include the States of
Delaware, New York, and West Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. This section increases the authorization of
appropriations for this section by $10,000,000 to a total of
$50,000,000.
Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to develop, at Federal
expense, and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to
prioritize projects to be carried out by the Secretary within
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In carrying out this authority,
the Secretary shall ensure that the plan: (1) focuses on
integrating existing and potential future work of the Corps;
(2) is developed in consultation with the EPA's Chesapeake Bay
program office; and (3) encompasses all actions necessary to
assist in the implementation of the goals of the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement, including any projects or authorities under the
jurisdiction of the Corps that are necessary for implementation
of Executive Order 13508.
Sec. 5002. Saint Lawrence Seaway
This section modifies section 5015(a) of WRDA 2007 (121
Stat. 1196) by striking ``$134,650,000'' and inserting
``$185,638,028''.
Sec. 5003. Watershed management
The section adds the following projects to the list of
watershed management, restoration, and development projects
under section 5002(d) of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1190): Esopus,
Rondout, and Wallkill watersheds, New York; San Gabriel River
watershed, California; South Platte River watershed, Colorado;
Loxahatchee River watershed, Jupiter, Florida; Hudson River
watershed, Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster Counties, New York; and
Muskingum River basin, Ohio.
Sec. 5004. Comprehensive shoreline restoration
This section authorizes $25,000,000 for each of the FY 2011
through 2016 for the Secretary to participate in the ecosystem
restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and emergency
streambank protection component of a project at designated
locations if the Secretary determines that any such component
is feasible. Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds may be
allotted under this section for a project at any single
location.
Subsection (b) designates the following locations as
eligible for this authority: Miller Knox Shoreline, Richmond,
California; Mississippi River, Davenport, Iowa; Lake Michigan
(in the vicinity of the former USX Site), Chicago, Illinois,
Pond and Mill Creek watershed, Louisville, Kentucky;
Massachusetts Bay (in the vicinity of Georges Island), Boston,
Massachusetts; Mississippi River (in the vicinity of the lower
St. Anthony Falls), Minneapolis, Minnesota; Brush Creek, Kansas
City, Missouri; Mississippi River, Kimmswick, Missouri;
Delaware River, Trenton, New Jersey; East River, New York, New
York; Upper New York Bay, Staten Island, New York; Abbott's
Creek, Lexington, North Carolina; Ohio River, Belpre, Ohio;
Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ohio, Allegheny,
and Monongahela Rivers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Ohio River,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Fields Point, Narragansett Bay,
Providence, Rhode Island; Congaree River, Columbia, South
Carolina; Wolf Creek Harbor, Mississippi River, Tennessee;
Ruston Way Seawall, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington; and
Lower Yahara River, McFarland, Wisconsin.
Sec. 5005. Northeast Coastal Region ecosystem restoration
This section directs the Secretary to plan, design, and
construct projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration within the
coastal waters of the Northeastern United States from Virginia
to Maine, including associated bays, estuaries, and critical
riverine areas. The Secretary, in coordination with the
Administrator of EPA, the heads of other appropriate Federal
agencies, the Governors of the coastal States from Virginia to
Maine, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties,
shall develop a general coastal management plan for aquatic
ecosystem restoration within the coastal waters of the
Northeastern United States. The Secretary is authorized to
carry out aquatic ecosystem restoration projects pursuant to
the general coastal management plan. Subsection (d) authorizes
an annual appropriation of $25,000,000 to carry out this
section, including the completion of the general coastal
management plan. Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds may
be allocated under this section for any single eligible
project.
Sec. 5006. Anacostia watershed, District of Columbia and Maryland
Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to participate in
the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction,
emergency streambank protection, and aquatic plant control
components of the Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan,
developed pursuant to section 5060 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat.
1215), if the Secretary determines that such component is
feasible. In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall
consult with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership.
In carrying out a project component under subsection (a), the
Secretary is directed to waive the cost share to be provided by
a non-Federal interest for any portion of the project that
benefits Federally-owned property. Subsection (d) authorizes an
appropriation of $25,000,000 to carry out this section.
Sec. 5007. Egmont Key, Florida
This section directs the Secretary to accept funds from the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to
carry out those portions of the project for shoreline
stabilization, Egmont Key, Florida, carried out under section 3
of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal participation
in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned
property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), that
benefit Federally-owned property.
Sec. 5008. Cambridge, Maryland
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out projects
for environmental protection and restoration at the Blackwater
Wildlife Refuge, Cambridge, Maryland. In carrying out such
projects, the Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sec. 5009. Hart-Miller Island, Maryland
This section prohibits the Secretary from consideration of
the use or expansion of Hart-Miller Island, Maryland, in any
dredged material management plan.
Sec. 5010. Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
project for the environmental remediation of Gallops Island,
Boston, Massachusetts. In carrying out such project, the
Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of the National
Park Service.
Sec. 5011. Sharkey County, Mississippi
This section provides that funding for the operation and
maintenance of the multiagency wildlife and environmental
interpretative and education center, authorized by section
145(f) of Division H of Public Law 108-199 (118 Stat. 443),
shall be provided by the Secretary of the Interior.
Sec. 5012. Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South
Carolina
This section directs the Secretary to expedite completion
of the reconnaissance and feasibility studies for the
Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South Carolina,
and if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible,
authorizes the Secretary to undertake project preconstruction,
engineering, and design.
Sec. 5013. Sense of Congress on the promotion of General Michael J.
Walsh to Major General, United States Army
This section expresses the Sense of the Congress on the
promotion of General Michael J. Walsh, U.S. Army.
Additional Matters
The Committee received a request to direct the Corps of
Engineers to budget for the construction of the recycled water
pipeline extending from the Sonoma Valley Country Sanitation
District Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation
District Waste Water Treatment Plant to the project for
environmental restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration,
California, authorized by section 1001(12) of the WRDA 2007
(121 Stat. 1051). In its implementation of section 1001(12),
the Corps has taken the position that the construction of the
recycled water pipeline and restoration or enhancement of Salt
Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3 (lower ponds) are not part of the
authorized Federal project. This interpretation is contrary to
the intent and the plain reading of section 1001(12). In the
Corps' own implementation guidance, dated March 24, 2008, it
recognizes that the ``project costs identified in Section
1001(12) are the costs associated with the combination of the
recommended Federal project and the additional features.''
Accordingly, when Congress authorized this combination, its
intent was that both the recommended Federal project and the
recycled water pipeline and restoration and enhancement of
additional Salt Ponds be implemented in tandem. The Committee
directs the Corps to execute work on the combined Napa River
Salt Marsh Restoration project and the recycled water pipelines
and additional Salt Ponds as a single project, without the need
for additional statutory language. The Committee also directs
the Corps to include funding for the recycled pipelines as part
of this single project in any budgetary request for the Napa
River Salt Marsh Restoration, California project.
Legislative History and Committee Consideration
In the 110th Congress, on April 30, 2008, the Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing entitled:
``Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2008''.
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Department of the
Army (Civil Works), and representatives of industry,
conservation organizations, and other stakeholders. No further
action was taken on this legislation in the 110th Congress.
In the 111th Congress, on November 18, 2009, the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing
entitled: ``Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of
2010''. The Subcommittee received testimony from Members of
Congress on issues and proposals for consideration in the
``Water Resources Development Act of 2010''.
On April 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing entitled: ``Proposals for a Water
Resources Development Act of 2010 Part II''. The Subcommittee
received testimony from the Department of the Army (Civil
Works), and representatives concerned with the flood damage
reduction, inland and coastal navigation, and environmental
restoration missions of the Corps of Engineers.
On July 28, 2010, Chairman James L. Oberstar and introduced
H.R. 5892, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010''. On
July 29, 2010, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 5892. The
Committee adopted two amendments to the bill by voice vote. The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered H.R.
5892, as amended, reported favorably to the House by voice vote
with a quorum present.
Record Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include the
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for
and against. There were no recorded votes taken in connection
with consideration of H.R. 5892 or ordering the bill, as
amended, reported. A motion to order H.R. 5892, as amended,
reported favorably to the House was agreed to by voice vote
with a quorum present.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget
Office included in the report.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are the
improvement of navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline
protection, water supply, and recreation, and environmental
restoration and protection.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R.
5892, as amended, from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 23, 2010.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5892, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2010.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aurora
Swanson.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 5892--Water Resources Development Act of 2010
Summary: H.R. 5892 would authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers to study and participate in the construction of more
than 200 new water projects. Assuming appropriation of the
authorized and necessary amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 5892 would cost $1.3 billion over the 2011-
2015 period.
The bill also would allow the Corps to collect and spend
funds contributed by private firms to expedite the evaluation
of permit applications. Because the legislation would affect
direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, based
on information from the Corps, CBO estimates that amounts
collected and spent for such purposes would total less than
$500,000 annually and that the net budgetary impact would be
negligible. Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues.
H.R. 5892 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Any costs to state,
local, or tribal governments to comply with conditions of
federal assistance would be incurred voluntarily.
H.R. 5892 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined
in UMRA if the Army Corps of Engineers acquires any real estate
interests by means of condemnation. CBO estimates that the cost
of the mandate, if imposed, would fall well below the annual
threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($141
million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government:
The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5892 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Title I--Water Resource Projects:
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 55 56 46 47 51 255
Estimated Outlays.............................. 17 31 34 38 42 162
Title III--Project-related Provisions:
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 280 291 285 288 286 1,430
Estimated Outlays.............................. 84 157 192 221 241 895
Title IV--Studies:
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 26 5 5 0 0 36
Estimated Outlays.............................. 16 13 5 2 0 36
Title V--Miscellaneous:
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 63 63 64 65 67 322
Estimated Outlays.............................. 18 35 43 49 55 200
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 424 415 400 400 404 2,043
Estimated Outlays.............................. 135 236 274 310 338 1,293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
5892 will be enacted in 2010 and that the necessary amounts
will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays
are based on information from the Corps of Engineers and
historical spending patterns for similar water resource
projects.
H.R. 5892 would authorize the Corps to conduct about 240
new studies to determine the feasibility of specific projects.
Those individual projects are related to reducing damage from
floods, protecting streambanks and shorelines, improving
navigation, restoring aquatic ecosystems, controlling aquatic
plants, and conserving water. The bill also would authorize the
Corps to participate in the construction of several new
projects as well as increase the federal cost-share for about
30 construction and resource projects authorized in previous
legislation. Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 5892 would cost $1.3 billion
over the 2011-2015 period and an additional $2.2 billion in the
decade following 2015.
Water Resource Projects
Title I would authorize appropriations for three new
projects aimed at ecosystem restoration, coastal improvements,
and shoreline restoration. Those authorizations include just
over $1 billion for the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem
Restoration Project in Maryland and $747 million for the
Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program. To protect the coasts
of the West Onslow Beach and the New River Inlet in North
Carolina from future hurricanes and storms, the bill would
authorize the appropriation of $21 million for construction of
a beach berm, with an additional $57 million for beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the North Carolina
projects. CEO expects that the amounts authorized for those
projects would be appropriated as needed. (The Corps expects
that those large projects would be implemented over the next 40
to 50 years.) CBO estimates that implementing those projects
would cost about $160 million over the 2011-2015 period,
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Title I also would direct the Corps to prepare 80 studies
on specific water projects. If the Corps determines that those
projects are feasible, the legislation would authorize them to
be implemented. No costs are included in this estimate for
those studies or construction activities because Corps already
has specific authority to study and implement those types of
projects.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Several provisions of current law (the Flood Control Act of 1946
and 1948, the River and Harbor Act of 1958 and 1960, an act authorizing
federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly
owned property, and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and
1996) authorize appropriations totalling $240 million a year to pursue
projects for reducing flood damage, navigation, streambank and
shoreline protection, aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, and
aquatic plant control. In fiscal year 2010, more than $100 million was
appropriated for such projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project-related Provisions
Title III would increase the federal share of costs for
about 30 water resource projects authorized under current law.
The projects focus on flood control and reducing damage from
floods, navigation, water conservation, and ecosystem and
environmental restoration.
CEO estimates that implementing those provisions would
increase federal costs for those projects by about $900 million
over the 2011-2015 period, assuming appropriation of the
necessary amounts.
Title III also would withdraw the authority of the Corps to
build 16 projects authorized in previous legislation. Based on
information from the Corps, CBO does not expect that the agency
would begin work on those projects over the next five years,
either because they do not have a local sponsor, do not meet
certain criteria for economic viability, or do not pass certain
environmental tests. Consequently, CBO estimates that
cancelling the authority to build those projects would not
yield significant savings over the next several years.
Studies
Title IV would authorize the Corps to prepare approximately
160 studies that focus on reducing damages from floods,
hurricanes, and storms, environmental restoration, shoreline
protection, and streambank stabilization. Based on information
from the Corps, CBO estimates that carrying out such studies
would cost $36 million over the 2011-2015 period.
Miscellaneous
Title V would authorize the appropriation of $25 million a
year for ecosystem restoration projects in the Northeast
coastal region. Under the bill, the Corps would develop a
general coastal management plan in coordination with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Governors of the coastal
states, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties.
Individual projects carried out under the plan would focus on
the restoration of aquatic habitats, wetlands, migratory fish
corridors, natural rivers and streams, and improving water
quality. The nonfederal share for each project's cost would be
35 percent, with the federal share limited to $10 million for
individual projects. CBO estimates that implementing this
provision would cost $80 million over the 2011-2015 period.
This title also would authorize the appropriation of $25
million a year over the 2011-2015 period for the Corps to
participate in comprehensive shoreline restoration projects and
an additional $50 million for operation, maintenance, repair,
and rehabilitation of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. In addition,
smaller amounts would be authorized to implement the Anacostia
River Restoration Plan and Chesapeake Bay Environmental and
Ecosystem Restoration. CBO expects that amounts authorized
under the title would be appropriated in the year they are
needed, and CBO estimates that implementing those projects
would cost $120 million over the 2011-2015 period.
General Provisions
H.R. 5892 also would require that funds appropriated from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) each year be equal to
the level of receipts plus the interest credited to the fund
for that fiscal year. Over the past five years, appropriations
from the HMTF have averaged around $800 million a year--or
about $600 million a year less than the revenues and interest
credited to the fund. Because current law authorizes the
appropriation of such sums as are necessary from the HMTF, CBO
assumes that enacting this bill would not effectively increase
the amounts authorized to be appropriated.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 5892 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. Water resource projects and activities authorized in the
bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments.
Governments that choose to participate in the projects would
incur costs, including cost-sharing requirements, but those
costs would be incurred voluntarily as conditions of federal
assistance.
Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 5892 would
authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to acquire any real
estate interests necessary for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of fish dispersal barriers in the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal. If the Corps acquires any of those real estate
interests by means of condemnation, H.R. 5892 would impose a
private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA on owners of those
real estate interests. The cost of the mandate would be equal
to the fair-market value of those interests. CBO estimates that
the cost of the mandate, if imposed, would be small and would
fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for
private-sector mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted
annually for inflation).
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Aurora Swanson; Impact
on state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell;
Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With House Rule XXI
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits, as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The
Committee has required Members of Congress to comply with all
the requirements of clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
H.R. 5892 does not include any limited tax benefits or limited
tariff benefits. The following table provides the list of
congressional earmarks in H.R. 5892:
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character shall include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (P.L. 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 5892, as amended,
does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 221 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970
SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.
(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Applicability.--
(i) * * *
[(ii) Limitation.--In any case in
which a specific provision of law
provides for a non-Federal interest to
receive credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of a study for, or
construction or operation and
maintenance of, a water resources
project, the specific provision of law
shall apply instead of this paragraph.]
(ii) Limitation.--In any case in
which a specific provision of law
provides for a non-Federal interest to
receive credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of a study for, or
construction or operation and
maintenance of, a water resources
project, the Secretary shall apply--
(I) the specific provision of
law instead of this paragraph;
or
(II) at the request of the
non-Federal interest, the
specific provision of law and
such provisions of this
paragraph as the non-Federal
interest may request.
(iii) Savings provision.--Nothing in
this subparagraph affects the
applicability of subsection (a)(4)(C).
[(b) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--The term]
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Non-federal interest.--The term ``non-Federal
interest'' means--
[(1)] (A) a legally constituted public body
(including a federally recognized Indian
tribe); or
[(2)] (B) a nonprofit entity with the consent
of the affected local government,
that has full authority and capability to perform the
terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if
necessary, in the event of failure to perform.
(2) Water resources project.--The term ``water
resources project'' includes projects studied,
reviewed, designed, constructed, operated and
maintained, or otherwise subject to Federal
participation under the authority of the civil works
program of the Secretary of the Army for the purposes
of navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem
restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction,
water supply, recreation, hydroelectric power, fish and
wildlife conservation, water quality, environmental
infrastructure, resource protection and development,
and related purposes.
(c) Every agreement entered into pursuant to this section
shall be [enforcible] enforceable in the appropriate district
court of the United States.
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 905. FEASIBILITY REPORTS.
(a) Preparation of Reports.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Cost estimates for feasibility reports.--In
preparing a feasibility report under this subsection,
the Secretary shall include in the report, and any
budget documents (including justification materials)
submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code, an accounting of the total cost of
the recommended plan and an estimate of the Federal and
non-Federal participation in the plan based on the
following scenarios:
(A) The cost of the project based on optimal
levels of Federal funding for the recommended
plan.
(B) The estimated cost of the project, based
on a 50 percent increase in the period for
implementation of the recommended plan.
(C) The estimated cost of the project, based
on a 100 percent increase in the period for
implementation of the recommended plan.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--
(1) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the
Secretary shall not submit any proposal for the
authorization of any water resources project to
Congress in any report, and shall not select a project
alternative in any report, unless such report contains
(A) a recommendation with a specific plan to mitigate
for damages to ecological resources, including
terrestrial and aquatic resources, and fish and
wildlife losses created by such project, or (B) a
determination by the Secretary that such project will
have negligible adverse impact on ecological resources
and fish and wildlife without the implementation of
mitigation measures. Specific mitigation plans shall
ensure that impacts to bottomland hardwood forests are
mitigated in-kind, and other habitat types are
mitigated to not less than in-kind conditions, to the
extent possible. If the Secretary determines that
mitigation to in-kind conditions is not possible, the
Secretary shall identify in the report the basis for
that determination. In carrying out this subsection,
the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal
and non-Federal agencies.
* * * * * * *
(3) Mitigation requirements.--
(A) In general.--To mitigate losses to flood
damage reduction capabilities and fish and
wildlife resulting from a water resources
project, the Secretary shall ensure that the
mitigation plan for each water resources
project complies with, at a minimum, the
mitigation standards and policies established
pursuant to the regulatory programs
administered by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Non-Federal Share; Limitation on Maximum Federal
Expenditure.--The non-Federal share of the cost of any
modifications or measures carried out or undertaken pursuant to
subsection (b) or (c) shall be 25 percent. Not more than 80
percent of the non-Federal share may be in kind, including a
facility, supply, or service that is necessary to carry out the
modification or measure. Not more than [$5,000,000] $10,000,000
in Federal funds may be expended on any single modification or
measure carried out or undertaken pursuant to this section.
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports
designated in this section:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(37) Hocking river basin, monday creek, ohio.--
(A) * * *
(B) Wayne national forest.--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(iii) Authorization of
appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary of
Agriculture to carry out this
subparagraph [$1,270,000] $12,000,000.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2006. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Applicability.--This section shall apply to project
studies that include--
(1) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2215(d)); or
(2) a detailed project report, as defined in such
section 105(d) and carried out under section 107(a) of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2008. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; COST SHARING.
(a) Federal Allocation.--Upon authorization by law of an
increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
allocated for a water resources project or an increase in the
total cost of a water resources project authorized to be
carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall enter into a
revised partnership agreement for the project to take into
account the change in Federal participation in the project.
This subsection shall apply without regard to whether the
original partnership agreement was entered into before, on, or
after the date of enactment of this subsection.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2034. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.
(a) * * *
(b) Timing of Peer Review.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Reasons for timing.--If the Chief of Engineers
does not initiate a peer review for a project study at
a time described in paragraph (2), the Chief shall make
publicly available, including on the Internet, for each
of such times the reasons for not conducting the
review, and shall include the reasons in the decision
document for the project study.
[(3)] (4) Limitation on multiple peer review.--
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
require the Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer
reviews for a project study.
(c) Establishment of Panels.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4) Congressional notification.-- Upon
identification of a project study for peer review under
this section, but prior to initiation of the review,
the Chief of Engineers shall notify the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives of the review.]
(4) Congressional and public notification.--Upon
identification of a project study for peer review under
this section, but prior to initiation of the review by
the panel of experts, the Chief of Engineers shall--
(A) notify the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives of the review; and
(B) make publicly available, including on the
Internet, information on--
(i) the dates scheduled for beginning
and ending the review;
(ii) the entity that has the contract
for the review; and
(iii) the names and qualifications of
the panel of experts.
* * * * * * *
(f) Recommendations of Panel.--
(1) * * *
[(2) Public availability and transmittal to
congress.-- After receiving a report on a project study
from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief
of Engineers shall--
[(A) make a copy of the report and any
written response of the Chief of Engineers on
recommendations contained in the report
available to the public by electronic means,
including the Internet; and
[(B) transmit to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives a copy of the
report, together with any such written
response, on the date of a final report of the
Chief of Engineers or other final decision
document for the project study.]
(2) Public availability and transmittal to
congress.--After receiving a report on a project study
from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief
of Engineers shall make available to the public,
including on the Internet, and transmit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives--
(A) a copy of the report within 3 days of
receiving the report; and
(B) a copy of any written response of the
Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained
in the report within 3 days of the date of the
response.
(3) Inclusion in project study.--A report on a
project study from a panel of experts under this
section and the written response of the Chief of
Engineers shall be included in the final decision
document for the project study.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2035. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a safety assurance
review conducted under this section.
SEC. 2036. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND WETLANDS LOSSES.
(a) * * *
(b) Status Report.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Information included.--In reporting the status of
all projects included in the report, the Secretary
shall--
(A) use a uniform methodology for determining
the status of all projects included in the
report;
(B) use a methodology that describes both a
qualitative and quantitative status for all
projects in the report; and
(C) provide specific dates for and
participants in the consultations required
under section 906(d)(4)(B) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2283(d)(4)(B)).
[(3)] (4) Availability of information.--The Secretary
shall make information contained in the status report
available to the public, including on the Internet.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3061. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS PROJECT,
ILLINOIS.
(a) * * *
(b) Authorization.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, at Federal expense,
shall--
[(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I;]
(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I in
its current location or at an alternative
location, as determined appropriate by the
Secretary;
(B) construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the
project cooperation agreement with the State of
Illinois dated [June 14, 2005] November 21,
2003, as amended on July 14, 2005;
(C) acquire real estate interests necessary
for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of Barrier I and Barrier II;
[(C)] (D) operate and maintain Barrier I and
Barrier II as a system to optimize
effectiveness;
[(D)] (E) conduct, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, local, and
nongovernmental entities, a study of a range of
options and technologies for reducing impacts
of hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the
Barriers; [and]
[(E)] (F) provide to each State a credit in
an amount equal to the amount of funds
contributed by the State toward Barrier II[.];
and
(G) construct additional barriers or other
fish deterrents at other locations in the
vicinity of the Chicago Area Waterway System,
if determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(2) Use of credit.--A State may apply a credit
provided to the State under [paragraph (1)(E)]
paragraph (1)(F) to any cost sharing responsibility for
an existing or future Federal project carried out by
the Secretary in the State.
* * * * * * *
(d) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental
entities, shall conduct, at Federal expense, a feasibility
study of the range of options and technologies available to
prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways. The study
shall include a fully developed analysis of an alternative for
hydrologic separation between the Great Lakes and the
Mississippi River basins. The hydrologic separation alternative
shall include identification of measures to prevent the
transfer of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes
and the Mississippi River basins through surface water.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3101. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.
(a) * * *
(b) Maximum Federal Expenditures.--The maximum amount of
Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be
[$7,000,000] $14,000,000.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--STUDIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4070. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction
on the [Ohio River] Ohio River and tributaries in Mahoning,
Columbiana, Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington,
Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, Ohio.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4077. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall 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] Mahoning River basin,
Pennsylvania, the Monongahela River basin, Pennsylvania, the
Allegheny River basin, Pennsylvania, and the Upper Ohio River
basin, Pennsylvania, to provide a level of flood protection
sufficient to prevent future losses to communities located in
such basins from flooding such as occurred in September 2004,
but not less than a 100-year level of flood protection.
(b) Priority Communities.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to the following Pennsylvania
communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township, [Shaler
Township] Shaler Township, Hampton Township, Harmar Township,
Jackson Township, Harmony, Zelienople, Darlington Township,
Houston Borough, Chartiers Township, Washington, Canton
Township, Tarentum Borough, and East Deer Township.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(9) [Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks] Esopus,
Rondout, and Wallkill watersheds, Greene, Sullivan, and
Ulster Counties, New York.
* * * * * * *
(19) San Gabriel River watershed, California.
(20) South Platte River watershed, Colorado.
(21) Loxahatchee River watershed, Jupiter, Florida.
(22) Hudson River watershed, Orange, Dutchess, and
Ulster Counties, New York.
(23) Muskingum River basin, Ohio.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5015. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, using amounts
contributed by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation under subsection (b), to carry out projects for
operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation, including
associated maintenance dredging, of the Eisenhower and Snell
lock facilities and related navigational infrastructure for the
Saint Lawrence Seaway, at a total cost of [$134,650,000]
$185,638,028.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5056. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEW
MEXICO, AND TEXAS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through [2011] 2015.
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 211. Performance of specialized or technical services.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 211. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.
[(a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term
``State'' has the meaning given the term in section 6501 of
title 31, United States Code.
[(b) Authority.--The Corps of Engineers may provide
specialized or technical services to a Federal agency (other
than an agency of the Department of Defense) or a State or
local government under section 6505 of title 31, United States
Code, only if the chief executive of the requesting entity
submits to the Secretary--
[(1) a written request describing the scope of the
services to be performed and agreeing to reimburse the
Corps for all costs associated with the performance of
the services; and
[(2) a certification that includes adequate facts to
establish that the services requested are not
reasonably and quickly available through ordinary
business channels.
[(c) Corps Agreement To Perform Services.--The Secretary,
after receiving a request described in subsection (b) to
provide specialized or technical services, shall, before
entering into an agreement to perform the services--
[(1) ensure that the requirements of subsection (b)
are met with regard to the request for services; and
[(2) execute a certification that includes adequate
facts to establish that the Corps is uniquely equipped
to perform such services.
[(d) Annual Report to Congress.--
[(1) In general.--Not later than the last day of each
calendar year, the Secretary shall provide 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
identifying any request submitted by a Federal agency
(other than an agency of the Department of Defense) or
a State or local government to the Corps to provide
specialized or technical services.
[(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include,
with respect to each request described in paragraph
(1)--
[(A) a description of the scope of services
requested;
[(B) the certifications required under
subsection (b) and (c);
[(C) the status of the request;
[(D) the estimated and final cost of the
services;
[(E) the status of reimbursement;
[(F) a description of the scope of services
performed; and
[(G) copies of all certifications in support
of the request.
[(e) Engineering Research and Development Center.--The
Engineering Research and Development Center is exempt from the
requirements of this section.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, after public notice, may
accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public
entities to expedite the evaluation of [permits under the
jurisdiction] permits of such entities related to projects for
a public purpose under the jurisdiction of the Department of
the Army.
[(b) Effect on Permitting.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under
subsection (a) will not impact impartial decisionmaking with
respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally.]
(b) Effect on Permitting.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted
under subsection (a) will not impact impartial
decision-making with respect to permits, either
substantively or procedurally.
(2) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation
of permits carried out using funds accepted under this
section shall--
(A) be reviewed by the District Commander of
the Corps District in which the project or
activity is located, unless the evaluation of
the permit is initially conducted by the
District Commander whereby the review shall be
conducted by the Commander of the Corps
Division in which the District is located; and
(B) utilize the same procedures for decisions
that would otherwise be required for the
evaluation of permits for similar projects or
activities not carried out using funds
authorized under this section.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds accepted
under this section shall be used to carry out a review of the
evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(2)(A).
(d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that all
final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized under
this section are made available to the public, including on the
Internet.
[(c)] (e) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided
under this section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000,
through December 31, [2010] 2016.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 522. MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage
reduction and environmental restoration, Muddy River, Brookline
and Boston, Massachusetts, substantially in accordance with the
plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the [draft
evaluation report of the New England District Engineer entitled
``Phase I Muddy River Master Plan'', dated June 2000] Final
Decision Document and Environmental Assessment Report of the
New England District Engineer entitled ``Muddy River Flood
Control and Ecosystem Restoration, Boston and Brookline,
Massachusetts'', dated September 2003, at a total cost of
$79,200,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 536. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AND TILLAMOOK BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,
OREGON AND WASHINGTON.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$30,000,000]
$45,000,000.
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than [$5,000,000] $10,000,000
in Federal funds may be allotted under this section for a
project at any single locality.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 510. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
[pilot] program to provide environmental assistance to
non-Federal interests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
* * * * * * *
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) * * *
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) In-kind services.--In accordance with
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), the non-Federal interest
may provide any portion of the non-Federal
share of the costs of the project carried out
under this section in the form of in-kind
services and materials.
(D) Treatment of certain funds.--In
accordance with section 2007 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C.
2222), funds provided by a Federal department
or agency other than the Corps of Engineers for
a project carried out under this section shall
be credited towards the non-Federal share of
the cost of project.
(e) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any
single locality.
[(e)] (f) Cooperation.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall cooperate with the heads of appropriate Federal
agencies, including--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f) Project.--The Secretary shall establish at least 1
project under this section in each of the States of Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania.]
(g) Projects.--The Secretary may carry out projects under
this section in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with the goal of
carrying out projects in each of the States of Delaware, New
York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and
the District of Columbia.
[(g)] (h) Protection of Resources.--A project established
under this section shall be carried out using such measures as
are necessary to protect environmental, historic, and cultural
resources.
[(h)] (i) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of
the program carried out under this section, together with a
recommendation concerning whether or not the program should be
implemented on a national basis.
[(i)] (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
[$40,000,000] $50,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 554. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for
shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, and, if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may
carry out the project, at a total cost of [$20,000,000]
$27,000,000.
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 314. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities.]
Sec. 314. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric
facilities.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES.
[Activities currently performed by personnel under the
direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation and
maintenance of hydroelectric power generating facilities at
Corps of Engineers water resources projects are to be
considered as inherently governmental functions and not
commercial activities. This section does not prohibit
contracting out major maintenance or other functions which are
currently contracted out or studying services not directly
connected with project maintenance and operations.]
SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES.
Activities currently performed by personnel under the
direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation and
maintenance of navigation or hydroelectric power generating
facilities, including all personnel under the direction of the
Secretary in connection with the operation and maintenance of
navigational infrastructure such as floodgates, locks, and
dams, at Corps of Engineers water resources projects, are
considered to be inherently governmental functions and not
commercial activities. This section does not prohibit
contracting out major maintenance or other functions that are
currently contracted out or studying services not directly
connected with project maintenance and operations.
----------
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2009
(division C of Public Law 111-8)
DIVISION C--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
* * * * * * *
GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 116. The [Colorado Department of Natural Resources is
authorized] Colorado Department of Natural Resources, or its
assignee, is authorized to perform modifications of the
facility (Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado), and any required
mitigation which results from implementation of the project:
Provided, That in carrying out the reassignment of storage
space provided for in this section, the Secretary shall
collaborate with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources
and local interests to determine costs to be repaid for storage
that reflects the limited reliability of the resources and the
capability of non-Federal interests to make use of the
reallocated storage space in Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2010 must be
viewed in the context of the extraordinary economic conditions
that currently face the Nation. Although we strongly support
investment in our national infrastructure, we have serious
issues with the scope and timing of this bill.
The Obama stimulus bill of last year was supposed to put
people to work and help us grow out of this recession; but it
hasn't worked. The reason it hasn't worked is because only a
small fraction of the money was spent on job producing
investments. Americans were assured by the Administration that
the Obama stimulus bill would halt the climbing unemployment
rate at 8%. Today, the unemployment rate is close to 10%. This
bill represents another empty promise to the taxpayers, because
here is no money in the system to fund the projects this bill
claims to move forward.
The national debt has grown at an alarming rate due to the
economic downturn, the bank bailouts, and the economic
stimulus. According to the Treasury Department, the U.S. debt
will exceed $13.6 trillion this year. That is 93 percent of the
expected gross domestic product, or GDP. By 2012, according to
Bloomberg.com, the total U.S. debt will exceed the value of the
nation's annual economic output. Financing that debt is taking
an ever increasing portion of the Nation's wealth. This year,
it will cost 32 percent of GDP to finance our debt, and this is
while interest rates are low. When interest rates rise, as they
eventually will, financing the debt will be even harder to
manage. The effect of all of this is a further slowing of
economic growth.
In the past, Republicans have been consistent advocates for
Corps of Engineers projects, and this will one day continue.
But now, times are different, and we must, unfortunately, delay
even the authorization of good projects. Even wise investments
in navigation and flood protection infrastructure should
receive careful scrutiny right now.
Republicans support common sense approaches to protecting
our environment and investments in water infrastructure. We
believe that providing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers an
opportunity to relieve the current authorization list of water
infrastructure projects is prudent at this time.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2010 also contains
some troubling provisions.
Section 2012 would repeal a provision of law that prohibits
the Corps of Engineers from performing activities that compete
directly with the private sector. While the intent of this
provision is to ensure levee inspections are handled quickly by
the most qualified entity, in many cases the Corps of
Engineers, the language is overly broad and will cause
unintended consequences. An amendment that was offered by the
Minority was withdrawn at the request of the majority that
would have clarified the intent of Section 2012. The Chairman
admitted at the Full Committee Markup on July 29, 2010 that
this section was overly broad and he stated his intent to work
with the Minority to correct this deficiency. To date, this has
not happened.
Section 2013 requires the Corps of Engineers to assume the
funds will be spent over an extended period rather than as
efficiently as possible. If the Corps has to assume the funds
will be spent over an extended period rather than as
efficiently as possible, projects will cost more. The effect of
this provision would be to cause alternative Benefit-Cost
ratios for projects to be calculated with less favorable
outcomes. It would apply to feasibility studies as well as
budget documents. The provision diminishes further the
likelihood that projects will get authorized or funded. This
provision will impact all provisions in Title IV of WRDA 2010
and all studies currently underway.
We hope that we will soon see the day when we can work
together to produce a WRDA bill with real promises attached.
However, when faced with the partisan approach taken in this
Act and the current economic conditions, the prospect of a
successful WRDA bill certainly appears to be a hope for future
years. For the reasons stated above, we cannot support a WRDA
bill at this time.
John L. Mica.