HR 1495 EAS

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.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

', do pass with the followingAMENDMENT:Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Water Resources Development Act of 2007'.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents offor this Act is as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem restoration plan for Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.Sec. 1003. Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana.Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 10053. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





Sec. 1009. Small projects to prevent or mitigate damage caused by navigation projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 100810. Small projects for aquatic plant control.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--ProvisionsSec. 2001. Credit for in-kindNon-Federal contributions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authorityFunding to process permits.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2003. Training fundWritten agreement for water resources projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2004. Fiscal transparency reportCompilation of laws.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2005. Planning.Sec. 2006. Water Resources Planning Coordinating CommitteeDredged material disposal.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2006. Remote and subsistence harbors.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2007. Independent peer reviewUse of other Federal funds.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife lossesRevision of project partnership agreement; cost sharing.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2009. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2009. State technical assistance.Sec. 2010. Access to water resource dataWatershed and river basin assessments.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interestsTribal partnership program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2012. Regional sediment managementWildfire firefighting.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development programTechnical assistance.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects.Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoringLakes program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2015. Cooperative agreements.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefitTraining funds.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of permitsAccess to water resource data.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applicationShore protection projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers reservoirsAbility to pay.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2020. Federal hopper dredgesAquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2021. Extraordinary rainfall evenSmall flood damage reduction projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2022. Wildfire firefighting.Sec. 2023. Nonprofit organizations as sponsorSmall river and harbor improvement projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2023. Protection of highways, bridge approaches, public works, and nonprofit public services.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2024. Project administrationModification of projects for improvement of the quality of the environment.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2025. Program administrationRemediation of abandoned mine sites.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2026. Extension of shore protection projectsLeasing authority.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2027. Tribal partnership programFiscal transparency report.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2028. Project deauthorization.Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities ProjectsSec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterborne transportationSupport of Army civil works program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and streambank29. Sense of Congress on criteria for operation and maintenance of harbor dredging projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and riparian ecosystems program0. Interagency and international support authority.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2031. Water resources principles and guidelines.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2032. Water resource priorities report.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2033. Planning.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and restoration of ecosystems programIndependent peer review.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitatsSafety assurance review.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sitMitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation and removal of damsRegional sediment management.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communitiesNational shoreline erosion control development program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projectMonitoring ecosystem restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2040. Electronic submission of permit applications.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2040. Program names.Subtitle C--National Levee Safety ProgramSec. 2051. Short title1. Project administration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2052. Definitions42. Program administration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2053. National Levee Safety Committee43. Studies and reports for water resources projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2054. National Levee Safety Program44. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local actions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2055. Authorization of appropriation45. Project streamlining.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2046. Project deauthorization.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2047. Federal hopper dredges.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3002. Cook Inlet, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3003. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3004. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, ArizonSeward Harbor, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3005. Sitka, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3006. Tatitlek, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3007. Rio dDe Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 30068. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3009. Tucson drainage area (Tucson Arroyo), Arizona.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3007. Augusta and Clarendon10. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3008. Eastern Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas11. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 300912. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3013. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.Sec. 3010. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.Sec. 3011. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.Sec. 3012. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas and OklahomLevees, Arkansas and Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 30134. Cache Creek Basin, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3014. CALFED levee5. CALFED stability program, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 30156. Compton Creek, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3017. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3018. Hamilton Airfield, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3016. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation9. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 301720. Kaweah River, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3021. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 301822. Llagas Creek, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 301923. Magpie Creek, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 30204. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3025. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3021. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat6. Pinole Creek, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3022. Redwood City Navigation Project7. Prado Dam, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 30238. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3029. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3024. Sacramento River bank protection project, California.Sec. 3025. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San Francisco30. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 302631. Sacramento River bank protection, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3032. Salton Sea restoration, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 302733. Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3034. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 302835. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3036. Seven Oaks Dam, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3037. Upper Guadalupe River, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 302938. Walnut Creek Channel, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3039. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3040. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3041. Yuba River Basin project, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3030. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut.Sec. 3031. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.Sec. 3032. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.Sec. 3033. St. George's Bridge, Delaware42. South Platte River basin, Colorado.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3034. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida43. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3035. Brevard County, Florida44. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3036. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration45. Brevard County, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3037. Lake Okeechobee46. Broward County and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects, comprehensive Everglades restorationInlet, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 303847. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3048. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3049. Lido Key, Sarasota County Beach, Sarasota, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3039. Port Sutton Channel, Tampa Harbor50. Peanut Island, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3040. Tampa Harbor,51. Port Sutton, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3052. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3053. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Tampa, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 304154. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 304255. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3056. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 304357. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3044. Port of Lewiston, Idaho58. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 304559. Cache River Levee, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3046. Chicago, Illinois.Sec. 304760. Chicago River, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3048. Illinois River Basin restoration61. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3062. Emiquon, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3049. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects reconstruction pilot program63. Lasalle, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 305064. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3051. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas65. Cedar Lake, Indiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3052. Milford Lake, Milford, Kansas66. Koontz Lake, Indiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3053. Ohio River Basin comprehensive plan67. White River, Indiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 305468. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3069. Perry Creek, Iowa.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3070. Rathbun Lake, Iowa.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3071. Hickman Bluff stabilization, Kentucky.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3055. McA72. Mcalpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3056. Public access,73. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3074. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3075. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3057. Regional visitor center,76. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, regional visitor center, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 305877. Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3078. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3079. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3059. East Baton Rouge Parish80. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3060. Mississippi River 81. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3082. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet relocation assistance, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3061. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway83. Violet, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 306284. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3085. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3063. Rockland Harbor, Maine.Sec. 3064. Rockport Harbor, Maine86. Cumberland, Maryland.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3065. Saco River, Maine87. Poplar Island, Maryland.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3066. Union River, Maine88. Detroit River shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3067. Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia89. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3068. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia90. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3069. Flood protection project, Cumberland, Maryland91. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3070. Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts92. Ada, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3071. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island93. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3072. North River, Peabody, Massachusetts94. Grand Marais, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3073. Ecorse Creek, Michigan95. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3096. Granite Falls, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3074. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan97. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3098. Red Lake River, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3099. Silver Bay, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3075. Duluth Harbor100. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3101. Two Harbors, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3076. Project for environmental enhancement, Mississippi and Louisiana estuarine areas, Mississippi and Louisiana102. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3077. Land exchange, Pike Coun103. Jackson County, Mississippi.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3104. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3105. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3078106. L-15 levee, Missouri.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3079. Union Lake107. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3080108. River Des Peres, Missouri.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3109. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3081110. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3082111. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3112. Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3113. Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, Nebraska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3083114. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3084115. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3116. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3117. Cooperative agreements, New Mexico.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3085118. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3086119. Buffalo Harbor, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3120. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and Connecticut.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3087121. Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers watershed management, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3088122. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3089. New York Harbor, New York, New York123. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3090124. New York State Canal System.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3091125. Susquehanna River and Upper Delaware River watershed management, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3092126. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3093. Ohio127. Wahpeton, North Dakota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3094128. Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3129. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3095. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Carroll Township130. Mahoning River, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3096131. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3097. Lake Eufaula132. Arkansas River Corridor, Oklahoma.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3098. Release of reversionary interest133. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3099134. Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 310035. Ottawa County, Oklahoma.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 310136. Red River chloride control, Oklahoma and Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 310237. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3103. Lookout Point project, Lowell38. Upper Willamette River watershed ecosystem restoration, Oregon.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3104. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration39. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3140. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3105. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York41. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3106. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island42. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3107. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.Sec. 3108. Missouri River restoration, South Dakot43. South Central Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3109. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project44. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3110. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee45. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3111. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.Sec. 3112. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.Sec. 311346. Missouri River Restoration, South Dakota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3147. Cedar Bayou, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3114. Denison48. Freeport Harbor, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3115. Central City, Fort Worth49. Lake Kemp, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3116. Freeport Harbor50. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3117. Harris Count51. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 311852. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3153. Proctor Lake, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3154. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3155. Connecticut River restoration, Vermont.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 311956. Dam remediation, Vermont.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 312057. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other nonnative plant control, Vermont.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 312158. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3122. Upper Connecticut River B59. Upper Connecticut River basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 312360. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3124. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.Sec. 3125. James River, Virginia.Sec. 3126. Tangier Island Seawall61. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3127. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington62. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3128. Lower granite pool63. Duwamish/Green, Washington.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 312964. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, Washington and Idaho.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 313065. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3131. Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham66. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3132. Lower Mud River, Milto67. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3133. McDowell County, West 68. Greenbrier River basin, West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3134. Green Bay Harbor project, Green Bay, Wisconsin69. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3135. Manitowoc Harbor70. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3171. Mcdowell County, West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3172. Parkersburg, West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3173. Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3136. Oconto74. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 313775. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3138. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site.Sec. 3139. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management program.Sec. 314076. Upper basin of Missouri River.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3141. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration77. Upper Mississippi River System environmental management program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3142. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.Sec. 3143. Great Lakes tributary models.Sec. 3144. Upper Ohio River and t78. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system new technology pilot program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3145. Perry Creek, Iowa79. Continuation of project authorizations.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3146. Rathbun Lake, Iowa80. Project reauthorizations.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3147. Jackson County, Mississippi.Sec. 3148. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia81. Project deauthorizations.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3182. Land conveyances.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 3183. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Seward Breakwater, AlaskaJohn Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4002. Nome Harbor improvements, AlaskaLake Erie dredged material disposal sites.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation ChannelSouthwestern United States drought study.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4004. Delaware River.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4005. Eurasian milfoil.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4006. Fire Island, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4007. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4008. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4009. Nome Harbor, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4010. St. George Harbor, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4011. Susitna River, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4012. Valdez, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4013. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4014. Searcy County, Arkansas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4015. Aliso Creek, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4016. Fresno, Kings, and Kern counties, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4017. Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge, Alameda, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 400518. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4019. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4006. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles20. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4021. Orick, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4007. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study22. Shoreline study, Oceanside, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4008. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena23. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 400924. Sacramento River, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4025. San Diego County, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4026. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman Island, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 401027. South San Francisco Bay shoreline studyShoreline, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4011. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California.Sec. 4012. Fountain Creek, North of Pueblo, Colorado28. Twentynine Palms, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 401329. Yucca Valley, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4030. Selenium studyies, Colorado.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 401431. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4032. Delaware inland bays and tributaries and Atlantic Ccoast, Delaware.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 40133. Collier County Beaches, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4034. Lower St. Johns River, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4035. Herbert Hoover Dike supplemental major rehabilitation report, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 401636. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4037. Meriwether County, Georgia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4038. Boise River, Idaho.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4017. Promontory Point third-party review, Chicago shoreline,39. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4040. Chicago, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 401841. Salem, Indiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4044. Louisville, Kentucky.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4045. Vidalia Port, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 40146. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4047. Clinton River, Michigan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4048. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4049. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4020. Wild Rice River, Minnesota50. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4021. Asian carp dispersal barrier demonstration project, Upper Mississippi River51. Northeast Mississippi.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 402252. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4053. Bayonne, New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4054. Carteret, New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4055. Gloucester County, New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4056. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4057. Batavia, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4058. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4059. Finger Lakes, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4060. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4061. Newtown Creek, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4062. Niagara River, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4063. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4064. Upper Delaware River watershed, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4065. Lincoln County, North Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4066. Wilkes County, North Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4067. Yadkinville, North Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4068. Flood damage reduction, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4023. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island69. Lake Erie, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 402470. Ohio River, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 402571. Toledo Harbor dredged material placement, Toledo, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 402672. Toledo Harbor, Maumee River, and Lake Channel Pproject, Toledo, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 402773. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4074. Walla Walla River basin, Oregon.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4075. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4076. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4077. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4078. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4079. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4080. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4081. Woonsocket local protection project, Blackstone River Bbasin, Rhode Island.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4028. Jasper County port facility stud82. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4083. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4029. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas84. Savannah River, South Carolina and Georgia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 403085. Chattanooga, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4086. Cleveland, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4087. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4088. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4089. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4090. Abilene, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4091. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4092. Port of Galveston, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4093. Grand County and Moab, Utah.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4094. Southwestern Utah.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4095. Ecosystem and hydropower generation dams, Vermont.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4031. Eurasian milfoil.Sec. 4032. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.Sec. 4033. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor96. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4034. Elliot Bay seawall rehabilitation study, Washington97. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4035. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville98. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4036. Debris removal99. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4037. Mohawk River, Oneida County, New York100. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 4038. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington101. Debris removal.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

PROVISIONSSec. 5001. Lakes programMaintenance of navigation channels.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5002. Estuary restorationWatershed management.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5003. Dam safety.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5003. Environmental infrastructure.Sec. 5004. AlaskaStructural integrity evaluations.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5005. CaliforniaFlood mitigation priority areas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5006. Conveyance of Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal propertyAdditional assistance for authorized projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5007. Stockton, CaliforniaExpedited completion of reports and construction for certain projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5010. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5011. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5012. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5013. Great Lakes tributary models.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5014. Great Lakes navigation and protection.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5015. Saint Lawrence Seaway.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5017. Estuary restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5018. Missouri River and tributaries, mitigation, recovery, and restoration, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5019. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River basins, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5020. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5021. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5022. Hypoxia assessment.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5023. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy evaluation and monitoring program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5024. Lock and dam security.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5025. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake River salmon survival.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5026. Wage surveys.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5027. Rehabilitation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5028. Auburn, Alabama.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5029. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5030. Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5031. Barrow, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





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





Sec. 5034. Tanana River, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5035. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5036. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5037. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5038. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5039. California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5040. Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, Stockton, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5041. Cambria, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5042. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5043. Dana Point Harbor, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5044. East San Joaquin County, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5045. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5046. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5047. Lancaster, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5048. Los Osos, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5049. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5050. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5051. San Francisco, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5052. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5053. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh ecosystem restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5054. St. Helena, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5055. Upper Calaveras River, Stockton, California.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5056. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 50057. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5058. Stamford, Connecticut.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5059. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.Sec. 5010. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 501160. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 501261. East Central and Northeast Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5062. Florida Keys water quality improvements.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5063. Lake Worth, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5064. Big Creek, Georgia, watershed management and restoration program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 501365. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 501466. Savannah, Georgia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5067. Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5015.68. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5069. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5070. Reconstruction of Illinois and Missouri flood protection projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5071. Illinois River basin restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5072. Promontory Point third-party review, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project, Illinois.Sec. 5016. Missouri River and tributaries, mitigation, recovery and restoration, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyomingshoreline, Chicago, Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 501773. Kaskaskia River basin, Illinois, restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5074. Southwest Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5075. Calumet region, Indiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5076. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5077. Paducah, Kentucky.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5078. Southern and eastern Kentucky.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5079. Winchester, Kentucky.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5080. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5081. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5082. East Atchafalaya basin and Amite River basin region, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5083. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock project, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5084. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5085. Southeast Louisiana region, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5018. Mississippi86. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5019. St. Mary Project, Blackfeet Reservation87. Charlestown, Maryland.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5088. St. Mary's River, Maryland.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5089. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5090. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5091. Crookston, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5092. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5093. Itasca County, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5094. Minneapolis, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5095. Northeastern Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5096. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5097. Mississippi.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5098. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5099. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5100. St. Louis, Missouri.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5101. St. Louis Regional Greenways, St. Louis, Missouri.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5102. Missoula, Montana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5020103. St. Mary project, Glacier County, Montana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5104. Lower Platte River watershed restoration, Nebraska.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5021. North Carolina105. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5022. Ohio River B106. Atlantic Coast of New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5107. College Point, New York City, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5108. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5109. Hudson River, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5110. Mount Morris Dam, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5111. North Hempstead and Glen Cove North Shore watershed restoration, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5112. Rochester, New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5113. North Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5114. Stanly County, North Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5115. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5116. Cincinnati, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5117. Ohio River basin environmental management.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5023118. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5119. Statewide comprehensive water planning, Oklahoma.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5024120. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5121. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5122. Clinton County, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5123. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5124. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5125. Northeast Pennsylvania.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5126. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5127. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5128. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5129. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5025. Texas.Sec. 5026. Connecticut River dams, Vermont130. East Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5027. Cost sharing provisions for the territories131. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5028. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock project132. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5029. Great Lakes navigation.TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONSSec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama133. Nashville, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6002. Goleta and Vicinity, California5134. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut5135. Tennessee River partnership.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6004. Inland Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Part II, installation of fender protection for bridges, Delaware and Maryland.Sec. 6005. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida5136. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6006. Illinois Waterway, South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River, Illinoi5137. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 5138. Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6007. Brevoort, Indiana5139. Bosque River watershed, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6008. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana5140. Dallas County region, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6009. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana5141. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6010. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa5142. Harris County, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6011. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa5143. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6012. Big South Fork National River and recreational area, Kentucky and Tennessee5144. Onion Creek, Texas.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6013. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky5145. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6014. Hazard, Kentucky5146. Lake Champlain Canal, Vermont and New York.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6015. West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky5147. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6016. Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisian5148. Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6017. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisian5149. James River, Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6018. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana5150. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6019. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana5151. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6020. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, Louisiana5152. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6021. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas5153. Willapa Bay, Washington.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6022. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine5154. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6023. Northeast Harbor, Maine5155. Central West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6024. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine5156. Southern West Virginia.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6025. Saint John River Basin, Maine5157. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6026. Tenants Harbor, Maine5158. Additional assistance for critical projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6027. Falmouth Harbor, Massachuset02. Pilot projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6028. Island End River, Massachuset03. Maximum costs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6029. Mystic River, Massachusetts04. Credit.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6030. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan05. Outreach and assistance.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6031. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi06. Critical restoration projects.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6032. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control, Nebraska07. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Sec. 7001. Definitions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6033. Epping, New Hampshire7002. Comprehensive plan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6034. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey7003. Louisiana coastal area.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





Sec. 6035. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York7005. Project modifications.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6036. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York7006. Construction.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6037. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York7007. Non-Federal cost share.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6038. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.Sec. 6039. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio7008. Project justification.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio7009. Independent review.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio7010. Expedited reports.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6042. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon7011. Reporting.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6043. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania7012. New Orleans and vicinity.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6044. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania7013. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6045. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island7014. Hurricane and storm damage reduction.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6046. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island7015. Larose to Golden Meadow.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6047. Arroyo Colorado, Texa7016. Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Sec. 8001. Definitions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6048. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas8002. Navigation improvements and restoration.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6049. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, Texas8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6050. Falfurrias, Texas8005. Comparable progress.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Sec. 9001. Short title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6051. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texa9002. Definitions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6052. Lake of the Pines, Texas9003. Committee on Levee Safety.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6053. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texa9004. Inventory and inspection of levees.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6054. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washingt9005. Limitations on statutory construction.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 6055. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia9006. Authorization of appropriations.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

In this Act, the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Army.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

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:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(2) PORT LIONS, ALASKA- The project for navigation, Port Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 14, 2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,906,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, ARIZONA- The project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,400,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(35) SALT RIVER (RIO SALADO OESTE), MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA- The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(6) SALT RIVER (VA SHLY'AY AKIMEL), MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) IN GENERAL- The project for ecosystemnvironmental restoration, Salt River (Va Shly'ay Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $105,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,900,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECTS- The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the developmentsign and construction of the project described in subparagraph (A) with each Federal reclamation project located in the the Bureau of Reclamation and any operating agent for any Federal reclamation project in the Salt River Basin to address statutory requirements and the operations of those projects.(4)void impacts to existing Federal reclamation facilities and operations in the Salt River Basin.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(7) MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS- The project for flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,010,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,840,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(6)9) SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA- The project for storm damage reduction, Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,250,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





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





(912) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(B) ADMINISTRATION- In carrying out the project authorized by this paragraph, the Secretary shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant to the project; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(10)3) DENVER COUNTY REACH, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, DENVER, COLORADO- The project for ecosystemnvironmental restoration, Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $20,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,065,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(11) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN,4) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SITE 1- The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan, central and southern Florida, Site 1 impoundment project, Palm Beach County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,420,000.(12) INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, SOUTH FLORIDA-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may carry out the project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and protection of water quality, Central and Southern Florida, Indian River Lagoon, south Florida, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $682,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $682,500,000, in accordance with section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) and the recommendations of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 2004.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) DEAUTHORIZATIONS- As of the date of enactment of this Act, the following projects are not authorizedThe following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(ii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-483; 82 Stat. 740), Martin County, Florida, modifications to Central and South Florida Project, as contained in Senate Document 101, 90th Congress, 2d Sessionthe project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,398,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(iii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-483; 82 Stat. 740), East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie-Martin County, Spillway Structure S-311 of the Central and South Florida Project, as contained in House Document 369, 90th Congress, 2d Sessionmodifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,994,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(135) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration Project, Collier County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $187,665,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(16) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SITE 1 IMPOUNDMENT PROJECT, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA- The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm Beach County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,420,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(17) MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(14) PICAYUNE STRAND, FLORIDA- The project for ecosystem restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimatedB) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT- The non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of cost of construction of the project.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) AGREEMENT- The Secretary shall enter into a new partnership with the non-Federal cost of $187,665,000.(15interest to reflect the cost sharing required by subparagraph (B).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





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





(1720) WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS- The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at a total cost of $17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1821) DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, DES MOINES, IOWA- The project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,780,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,967,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,813,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1922) LICKING RIVER BASIN, CYNTHIANA, KENTUCKY- The project for flood damage reduction, Licking River Basin, Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,370,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(23) BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LOUISIANA- The project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,6800,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(204) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(B) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE- The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features that provide forof the project described in subparagraph (A) that provide for inland waterway transportation shall be a Federal responsibility, in accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212; Public Law 99-662).(21).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(25) PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA- The project for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $131,250,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $105,315,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,935,000,; except that the Secretary, in consultation with Vermillion and Iberia Parishes, Louisiana, is directed toand consistent with the mitigation plan in the report, shall use available dredged material and rock placement on the south bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the west bank of the Freshwater Bayou Channel to provide incidental storm surge protection.(22) POPLAR ISLAND EXPANSION, MARYLAND- The project for the beneficial use of dredged material at Poplar Island, Maryland, authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776), and modified by section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2678), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the expansion of the project in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at an additional total cost of $260,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $195,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $65,000,000.(23) that does not adversely affect the mitigation plan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





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





(25) MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Mississippi coastal improvement project, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $107,690,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,690,000.(268) ARGENTINE, EAST BOTTOMS, FAIRFAX-JERSEY CREEK, AND NORTH KANSAS LEVEES UNITS, MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES AT KANSAS CITIES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS- The project for flood damage reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and tributaries at Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,900,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(2830) GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNSENDS INLET, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $54,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $35,069,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,291,000, and at an estimated total cost of $202,500,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $101,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $101,250,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(29) HUDSON-31) HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE PARK, NEW JERSEY-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(30) MANASQUANB) RESTORATION TEAMS- In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey department of environmental protection, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and other experts designated by the Secretary for the purpose of developing habitat restoration and water quality enhancement.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





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





(32) SOUTH RIVER, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, South River, New 4) SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $42,800,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





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





(357) HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OHIO-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) IN GENERAL- The project for ecosystem restoration, Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2006, at a total cost of $20,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,440,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,540,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) WAYNE NATIONAL FOREST-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(i) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may construct other project features on property that is located in the Wayne National Forest, Ohio, owned by the United States and managed by the Forest Service as described in the report of the Corps of Engineers entitled `Hocking River Basin, Ohio, Monday Creek Sub-Basin Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment'.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(ii) COST- Each project feature carried out on Federal land shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained at full FederalFederal expense.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(iii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraphthe Secretary of Agriculture to carry out this subparagraph $1,270,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(36)8) TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA- The project for flood damage reduction,COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA- The project for flood damage reduction, town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of $44,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,575,000(37.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





(3840) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) IN GENERAL- The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $100,300,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE- In carrying out the project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce the navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, including, at the sole expense of the owner of the facility, the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the project.(39 (including the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the project) consistent with the cost sharing requirements of section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(41) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, MATAGORDA BAY RE-ROUTE, TEXAS- The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





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





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





(42) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, VIRGINIA- The project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $31,229,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $680,874,000.(43) DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA- The project for the4) ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA- The project for Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(44) CHEHALIS RIVER, CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON- The project for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Washington, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 100 Stat. 4126)--(A) is modified to be carried out at a total cost of $123,770,000, with a Federal cost of $74,740,000, and a non-Federal cost of $49,030,000; and(B) shall be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in the final report of the5) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) IN GENERAL- The project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Hampton Roads, Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers dated September 27, 2004.SEC. 1002. ENHANCED NAVIGATION CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN FOR UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM.(a) Definitions- In this section:(1) PLAN- The term `Plan' means the project for navigation and ecosystem improvements for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 15, 2004.(2) UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM- The term `Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System' means the projects for navigation and ecosystem restoration authorized by Congress for--(A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River Mile 854.0; and(B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to T.J. O'Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.(b) Authorization of Construction of Navigation Improvements-(1) SMALL SCALE AND NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES-(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall, in general conformance with the Plan--(i) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, and LaGrange Lock;(ii) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and(iii) conduct development and testing of an appointment scheduling system.(B) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- The total cost of the projects authorized under this paragraph shall be $256,000,000. The costs of construction of the projects shall be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such sums shall remain available until expended.(2) NEW LOCKS-(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall, in general conformance with the Plan, construct new 1,200-foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois Waterway.(B) MITIGATION- The Secretary shall conduct mitigation for the new locks and small scale and nonstructural measures authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2).(C) CONCURRENCE- The mitigation required under subparagraph (B) for the projects authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2), including any acquisition of lands or interests in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with lands and interests for the projects authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2), and physical construction required for the purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the physical construction of such projects.(D) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- The total cost of the projects authorized under this paragraph shall be $1,948,000,000. The costs of construction on the projects shall be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such sums shall remain available until expended.(c) Ecosystem Restoration Authorization-(1) OPERATION- To ensure the environmental sustainability of the existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, the Secretary shall modify, consistent with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, the operation of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.(2) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS-(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall carry out, consistent with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River in accordance with the general framework outlined in the Plan.(B) PROJECTS INCLUDED- Ecosystem restoration projects may include, but are not limited to--(i) island building;(ii) construction of fish passages;(iii) floodplain restoration;(iv) water level management (including water drawdown);(v) backwater restoration;(vi) side channel restoration;(vii) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;(viii) island and shoreline protection;(ix) topographical diversity;(x) dam point control;(xi) use of dredged material for environmental purposes;(xii) tributary confluence restoration;(xiii) spillway, dam, and levee modification to benefit the environment;(xiv) land easement authority; and(xv) land acquisition.(C) COST SHARING-(i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), the Federal share of the cost of carrying out an ecosystem restoration project under this paragraph shall be 65 percent.(ii) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RESTORATION PROJECTS- In the case of a project under this subparagraph for ecosystem restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out the project shall be 100 percent if the project--(I) is located below the ordinary high water mark or in a connected backwater;(II) modifies the operation or structures for navigation; or(III) is located on federally owned land.(iii) SAVINGS CLAUSE- Nothing in this paragraph affects the applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).(iv) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS- Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), for any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.(D) LAND ACQUISITION- The Secretary may acquire land or an interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a willing owner through conveyance of--(i) fee title to the land; or(ii) a flood plain conservation easement.(3) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN-(A) RESTORATION DESIGN- Before initiating the construction of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the Secretary shall--(i) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify specific performance measures designed to demonstrate ecosystem restoration;(ii) establish the without-project condition or baseline for each performance indicator; and(iii) for each separable element of the ecosystem restoration, identify specific target goals for each performance indicator.(B) OUTCOMES- Performance measures identified under subparagraph (A)(i) should comprise specific measurable environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the population and distribution of which are representative of the abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic and terrestrial species.(C) RESTORATION DESIGN- Restoration design carried out as part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan for the performance measures identified under subparagraph (A)(i), including--(i) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; and(ii) a timeline for the demonstration of project completion.(4) SPECIFIC PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION-(A) IN GENERAL- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,717,000,000, of which not more than $245,000,000 shall be available for projects described in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) and not more than $48,000,000 shall be available for projects described in paragraph (2)(B)(x). Such sums shall remain available until expended.(B) LIMITATION ON AVAILABLE FUNDS- Of the amounts made available under subparagraph (A), not more than $35,000,000 for each fiscal year shall be available for land acquisition under paragraph (2)(D).(C) INDIVIDUAL PROJECT LIMIT- Other than for projects described in clauses (ii) and (x) of paragraph (2)(B), the total cost of any single project carried out under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.(5) IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS-(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than June 30, 2008, and every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives an implementation report that--(i) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities for ecosystem restoration projects; and(ii) measures the progress in meeting the goals.(B) ADVISORY PANEL-(i) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall appoint and convene an advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the development of each implementation report under subparagraph (A).(ii) PANEL MEMBERS- Panel members shall include--(I) 1 representative of each of the State resource agencies (or a designee of the Governor of the State) from each of the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin;(II) 1 representative of the Department of Agriculture;(III) 1 representative of the Department of Transportation;(IV) 1 representative of the United States Geological Survey;(V) 1 representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;(VI) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency;(VII) 1 representative of affected landowners;(VIII) 2 representatives of conservation and environmental advocacy groups; and(IX) 2 representatives of agriculture and industry advocacy groups.(iii) CHAIRPERSON- The Secretary shall serve as chairperson of the advisory panel.(iv) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Advisory Panel or any working group established by the Advisory Panel.(6) RANKING SYSTEM-(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed projects.(B) PRIORITY- The ranking system shall give greater weight to projects that restore natural river processes, including those projects listed in paragraph (2)(B).(d) Comparable Progress-(1) IN GENERAL- As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, design, and construction for projects authorized under this section, the Secretary shall--(A) select appropriate milestones; and(B) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the projects are being carried out at comparable rates.(2) NO COMPARABLE RATE- If the Secretary determines under paragraph (1)(B) that projects authorized under this subsection are not moving toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding requests for the projects will be adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward completion at a comparable rate in the future.SEC. 1003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LOUISIANA.(a) In General- The Secretary may carry out a program for ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.(b) Priorities-(1) IN GENERAL- In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to--(A) any portion of the program identified in the report described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration feature;(B) any Mississippi River diversion project that--(i) protects a major population area of the Pontchartrain, Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne Basin; and(ii) produces an environmental benefit to the coastal area of the StateOctober 24, 2006, at a total cost of Louisiana; and(C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project that--(i) is carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River diversion project; and(ii) protects a major population area.(c) Modifications-(1) IN GENERAL- In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to make modifications as necessary to the 5 near-term critical ecosystem restoration features identified in the report referred to in subsection (a), due to the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the project areas.(2) INTEGRATION- The Secretary shall ensure that the modifications under paragraph (1) are fully integrated with the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 2247).(3) CONSTRUCTION-(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary is authorized to construct the 5 near-term critical ecosystem restoration features, as modified under this subsection$712,103,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) REPORTS- Before beginning construction of the projects, the Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications to the 5 near-term critical projects, including cost changes, to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.(4) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS- Section 902NON-FEDERAL SHARE- Notwithstanding sections 101 and 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall not apply to the 5 near-term critical projects authorized by this subsection.(d) Demonstration Program-(1) IN GENERAL- In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to conduct a demonstration program within the applicable project area to evaluate new technologies and the applicability of the technologies to the program.(2) COST LIMITATION- The cost of an individual project under this subsection shall be not more than $25,000,000.(e) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material-(1) IN GENERAL- In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to use such sums as are necessary to conduct a program for the beneficial use of dredged material.(2) CONSIDERATION- In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the beneficial use of sediment from the Illinois River System for wetlands restoration in wetlands-depleted watersheds.(f) Reports-(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary shall submit to Congress feasibility reports--(A) on the features included in table 3 of the report referred to in subsection (a); and(B) that are consistent with the estimates in the table, subject to section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4183).(2) PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN REPORTS-(A) CONSTRUCTION- The Secretary is authorized to construct the projects identified in the reports substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a favorable report of the Chief is completed by not later than December 31, 2010.(B) REQUIREMENT- No appropriations shall be made to construct any project under this subsection if the report under paragraph (1) has not been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.(g) Nongovernmental Organizations-(1) IN GENERAL- A nongovernmental organization shall be eligible to contribute all or a portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this section.(2) USE OF FUNDS FROM OTHER PROGRAMS- The non-Federal interest for a study or project conducted under this section may use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided by a Federal agency under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the study or project, if the head of the Federal agency certifies that the funds may be used for that purpose.(h) Comprehensive Plan-(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in coordination with the Governor of the State of Louisiana, shall--(A) develop a plan for protecting, preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, submit to Congress the plan, or an update of the plan; and(C) ensure that the plan is fully integrated with the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 2247).(2) INCLUSIONS- The comprehensive plan shall include a description of--(A) the framework of a long-term program that provides for the comprehensive protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, estuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related land and features of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including protection of a critical resource, habitat, or infrastructure from the effects of a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or subsidence;(B) the means by which a new technology, or an improved technique, can be integrated into the program under subsection (a);(C) the role of other Federal agencies and programs in carrying out the program under subsection (a); and(D) specific, measurable ecological success criteria by which success of the comprehensive plan shall be measured.(3) CONSIDERATION- In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating into the program under subsection (a)--(A) a related Federal or State project carried out on the date on which the plan is developed;(B) an activity in the Louisiana Coastal Area; or(C) any other project or activity identified in--(i) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;(ii) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;(iii) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan;(iv) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled `Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana'; or(v) the Comprehensive Master Coastal Protection Plan authorized and defined by Act 8 of the First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana State Legislature, 2005.(i) Task Force-(1) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established a task force to be known as the `Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force' (referred to in this subsection as the `Task Force').(2) MEMBERSHIP- The Task Force shall consist of the following members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an equivalent level):(A) The Secretary.(B) The Secretary of the Interior.(C) The Secretary of Commerce.(D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.(E) The Secretary of Agriculture.(F) The Secretary of Transportation.(G) The Secretary of Energy.(H) The Secretary of Homeland Security.(I) 3 representatives of the State of Louisiana appointed by the Governor of that State.(3) DUTIES- The Task Force shall make recommendations to the Secretary regarding--(A) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities for addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;(B) financial participation by each agency represented on the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including recommendations--(i) that identify funds from current agency missions and budgets; and(ii) for coordinating individual agency budget requests; and(C) the comprehensive plan under subsection (h).(4) WORKING GROUPS-(A) IN GENERAL- The Task Force may establish such working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary to assist the Task Force in carrying out this subsection.(B) INTEGRATION TEAM-(i) IN GENERAL- The Task Force shall establish, for the purposes described in clause (ii), an integration team comprised of--(I) independent experts with experience relating to--(aa) coastal estuaries;(bb) diversions;(cc) coastal restoration;(dd) wetlands protection;(ee) ecosystem restoration;(ff) hurricane protection;(gg) storm damage reduction systems; and(hh) navigation and ports; and(II) representatives of--(aa) the State of Louisiana; and(bb) local governments in southern Louisiana.(ii) PURPOSES- The purposes referred to in clause (i) are--(I) to advise the Task Force and the Secretary regarding opportunities to integrate the planning, engineering, design, implementation, and performance of Corps of Engineers projects for hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and navigation in areas of Louisiana declared to be a major disaster as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita;(II) to review reports relating to the performance of, and recommendations relating to the future performance of, the hurricane, coastal, and flood protection systems in southern Louisiana, including the reports issued by the Interagency Performance Evaluation Team, the National Science Foundation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and Team Louisiana to advise the Task Force and the Secretary on opportunities to improve the performance of the protection systems; and(III) to carry out such other duties as the Task Force or the Secretary determine to be appropriate.(5) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Task Force or any working group of the Task Force.(j) Science and Technology-(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish a coastal Louisiana ecosystem science and technology program.(2) PURPOSES- The purposes of the program established by paragraph (1) shall be--(A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the physical, chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana;(B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana; and(C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and methods to carry out this subsection.(3) WORKING GROUPS- The Secretary may establish such working groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to assist the Secretary in carrying out this subsection.(4) CONTRACTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS- In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with an individual or entity (including a consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana) with scientific or engineering expertise in the restoration of aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal restoration and enhancement through science and technology.(k) Analysis of Benefits-(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision of law, in carrying out an activity to conserve, protect, restore, or maintain the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the Secretary may determine that the environmental benefits provided by the program under this section outweigh the disadvantage of an activity under this section.(2) DETERMINATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS- If the Secretary determines that an activity under this section is cost-effective, no further economic justification for the activity shall be required.(l) Studies-(1) DEGRADATION- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the non-Federal interest, shall enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences under which the National Academy of Sciences shall carry out a study to identify--(A) the cause of any degradation of the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem that occurred as a result of an activity approved by the Secretary; and(B) the sources of the degradation.(2) FINANCING- On completion, and taking into account the results, of the study conducted under paragraph (1), the Secretary, in consultation with the non-Federal interest, shall study--(A) financing alternatives for the program under subsection (a); and(B) potential reductions in the expenditure of Federal funds in emergency responses that would occur as a result of ecosystem restoration in the Louisiana Coastal Area.(m) Project Modifications-(1) REVIEW- The Secretary, in cooperation with any non-Federal interest, shall review each federally-authorized water resources project in the coastal Louisiana area in existence on the date of enactment of this Act to determine whether--(A) each project is in accordance with the program under subsection (a); and(B) the project could contribute to ecosystem restoration under subsection (a) through modification of the operations or features of the project.(2) MODIFICATIONS- Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the Secretary may carry out the modifications described in paragraph (1)(B).(3) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT- Before completing the report required under paragraph (4), the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for public notice and comment.(4) REPORT-(A) IN GENERAL- Before modifying an operation or feature of a project under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report describing the modification.(B) INCLUSION- A report under subparagraph (A) shall include such information relating to the timeline and cost of a modification as the Secretary determines to be relevant.(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000.(n) Louisiana Water Resources Council- The Secretary shall establish a council, to be known as the `Louisiana Water Resources Council', which shall serve as the exclusive peer review panel for activities conducted by the Corps of Engineers in the areas in the State of Louisiana declared as major disaster areas in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act11 and 2213), the Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 50 percent.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(46) CENTRALIA, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS COUNTY, WASHINGTON-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) IN GENERAL- The project for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Chehalis River, Lewis County, Washington: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 27, 2004, at a total cost of $123,770,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,740,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $49,030,000.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) CREDIT- The Secretary shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(i) credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 5170) in response to Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005, in accordance with the requirements of section 2007.(o) External Review- The Secretary shall enter into a contract with the National Academy of Science to perform an external review of the demonstration program under subsection (d), and the results of the review shall be submitted to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.(p) New Orleans and Vicinity-(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary is authorized--(A) to raise levee heights as necessary, and to otherwise enhance the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the West Bank and Vicinity Project to provide the levels of protection necessary to achieve the certification required for the 100-year level of flood protection, in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program under the base flood elevations current at the time of the construction;(B) to modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue drainage canals, including installing pumps and closure structures at or near the lakefront at Lake Pontchartrain;(C) to armor critical elements of the New Orleans hurricane and storm damage reduction system;(D) to improve and otherwise modify the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to increase the reliability of the flood protection system for the city of New Orleans;(E) to replace or modify certain non-Federal levees in Plaquemines Parish to incorporate the levees into the New Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection Project;(F) to reinforce or replace flood walls in the existing Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the existing West Bank and Vicinity Project to improve performance of the flood protection systems;(G) to perform onetime storm-proofing of interior pump stations to ensure the operability of the stations during hurricanes, storms, and high-water events;(H) to repair, replace, modify, and improve non-Federal levees and associated protection measures in Terrebonne Parish; and(I) to reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New Orleans metropolitan area by restoring the surrounding wetlands through--(i) measures to begin to reverse wetland losses in areas affected by navigation, oil and gas exploration and extraction, and other channels; and(ii) modification of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion structure or its operations.(2) FUNDING AUTHORITY- An activity under paragraph (1) shall be carried out in accordance with the cost-sharing requirements of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 418).(3) CONDITIONS-(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a notice in any case in which an estimate for the expenditure of funds on any project or activity described in paragraph (1) exceeds the amount specified for that project or activity in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 418).(B) APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION- No appropriation in excess of an amount equal to 25 percent more than the amount specified for a project or activity in that Act shall be made until an increase in the level of expenditure has been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committees referred to in subparagraph (A).(q) Larose to Golden Meadow-(1) REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report describing any modification required to the project for flood damage reduction, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana, to achieve the certification necessary for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.(2) MODIFICATIONS- The Secretary is authorized to carry out a modification described in paragraph (1) if--(A) the Secretary submits a recommendation for authorization of the modification in the report under paragraph (1); and(B) the total cost of the modification does not exceed $90,000,000.(3) REQUIREMENT- No appropriation shall be made to construct any modification under this subsection if the report under paragraph (1) has not been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.(4) CREDIT- The Secretary shall credit to1962d-5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project under this subsection any amount otherwise eligible to be credited under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) (as amended by section 2001).(r) Consolidation-(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may consolidate the flood damage reduction projects in Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, that have been identified for implementation under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) as of the date of enactment of this Act.(2) TOTAL COST- The Secretary may implement the consolidated project referred to in paragraph (1) if the total cost of the consolidated project does not exceed $100,000,000.(s) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet-(1) DEAUTHORIZATION-(A) IN GENERAL- Effective beginning on the date of submission of the plan required under subparagraph (C), the navigation channel portion of the project for navigation, Mississippi River Gulf outlet, authorized by the Act of March 29, 1956 (70 Stat. 65, chapter 112;100 Stat. 4177; 110 Stat. 3717), which extends from the Gulf of Mexico to Mile 60 at the southern bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, is not authorized.(B) SCOPE- Nothing in this paragraph modifies or deauthorizes the Inner Harbor navigation canal replacement project authorized by that Act.(C) CLOSURE AND RESTORATION PLAN-(i) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a final report on the deauthorization of the Mississippi River Gulf outlet, as described under the heading `INVESTIGATIONS' under chapter 3 of title II of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 453).(ii) INCLUSIONS- At a minimum, the report under clause (i) shall include--(I) a comprehensive plan to deauthorize navigation on the Mississippi River Gulf outlet;(II) a plan to physically modify the Mississippi River Gulf outlet and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel;(III) a plan to restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge;(IV) a plan to prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway;(V) efforts to integrate the recommendations of this report with the program authorized under subsection (a) and the analysis and design authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Develop Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 2247); and(VI) consideration of--(aa) use of native vegetation; and(bb) diversions of fresh water to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem.(D) CONSTRUCTION- The Secretary shall carry out a plan to close the Mississippi River Gulf outlet and restore and protect the ecosystem substantially in accordance with the plan required under subparagraph (C), if the Secretary determines that the project is cost-effective, environmentally acceptable, and technically feasible.(t) Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction- With respect to the projects identified in the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 2247), the Secretary shall--(1) to the maximum extent practicable, submit specific project recommendations in any report developed under that Act; and(2) submit the reports to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.(u) Emergency Procedures-(1) IN GENERAL- If the President determines that a feature recommended in the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection under title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 2447), could--(A) address an imminent threat to life and property;(B) prevent a dangerous storm surge from reaching a populated area;(C) prevent the loss of coastal areas that reduce the impact of storm surge;(D) benefit national energy security;(E) protect emergency hurricane evacuation routes or shelters; or(F) address inconsistencies in hurricane protection standards;the President may submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for authorization a legislative proposal relating to the feature, as the President determines to be appropriate.(2) PRIORITIZATION- In submitting legislative proposals under paragraph (1), the President shall give highest priority to any project that, as determined by the President, would--(A) to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the risk--(i) of loss of human life;(ii) to public safety; and(iii) of damage to property; and(B) minimize costs and environmental impacts.(3) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION-(A) IN GENERAL- Beginning after December 31, 2008, any legislative proposal submitted by the President under paragraph (1) shall be eligible for expedited consideration in accordance with this paragraph.(B) INTRODUCTION- As soon as practicable after the date of receipt of a legislative proposal under paragraph (1), the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives shall introduce the proposal as a bill, by request, in the Senate or the House of Representatives, as applicable.(C) REFERRAL- A bill introduced under subparagraph (B) shall be referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and as applicable the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.(D) COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION-(i) IN GENERAL- Not later than 45 legislative days after a bill under subparagraph (B) is referred to a Committee in accordance with subparagraph (C), the Committee shall act on the bill.(ii) FAILURE TO ACT- If a Committee fails to act on a bill by the date specified in clause (i), the bill shall be discharged from the Committee and placed on the calendar of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as applicable.(E) SENATE FLOOR CONSIDERATION-(i) IN GENERAL- Floor consideration in the Senate regarding a bill introduced under subparagraph (B) shall be limited to 20 hours, to be equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate (or a designee).(ii) NONGERMANE AMENDMENTS- An amendment that is nongermane to a bill introduced under subparagraph (B) shall not be in order.(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- This requirements of, and authorities under, this subsection shall expire on December 31, 2010.SEC. 1004p to $6,500,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest in accordance with the project study plan dated November 28, 1999; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(ii) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink