Back to Bill Details

S 1248 PCS

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.

April 30, 2007

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, reported the following original bill; which was read twice and placed on the calendar

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.

Sec. 1002. 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.

Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation.

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Provisions

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.

Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority.

Sec. 2003. Training funds.

Sec. 2004. Fiscal transparency report.

Sec. 2005. Planning.

Sec. 2006. Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee.

Sec. 2007. Independent peer review.

Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.

Sec. 2009. State technical assistance.

Sec. 2010. Access to water resource data.

Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.

Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management.

Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program.

Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects.

Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring.

Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits.

Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of permits.

Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications.

Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers reservoirs.

Sec. 2020. Federal hopper dredges.

Sec. 2021. Extraordinary rainfall events.

Sec. 2022. Wildfire firefighting.

Sec. 2023. Nonprofit organizations as sponsors.

Sec. 2024. Project administration.

Sec. 2025. Program administration.

Sec. 2026. Extension of shore protection projects.

Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities Projects

Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation.

Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and streambanks.

Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and riparian ecosystems program.

Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and restoration of ecosystems program.

Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.

Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.

Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation and removal of dams.

Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities.

Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects.

Sec. 2040. Program names.

Subtitle C--National Levee Safety Program

Sec. 2051. Short title.

Sec. 2052. Definitions.

Sec. 2053. National Levee Safety Committee.

Sec. 2054. National Levee Safety Program.

Sec. 2055. Authorization of appropriations.

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.

Sec. 3004. Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Sec. 3005. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.

Sec. 3006. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Sec. 3007. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.

Sec. 3008. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.

Sec. 3009. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Sec. 3010. Cache Creek Basin, California.

Sec. 3011. CALFED levee stability program, California.

Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California.

Sec. 3013. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation, California.

Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.

Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California.

Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California.

Sec. 3017. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.

Sec. 3018. Redwood City Navigation Project, California.

Sec. 3019. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.

Sec. 3020. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San Francisco, California.

Sec. 3021. Salton Sea restoration, California.

Sec. 3022. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California.

Sec. 3023. Upper Guadalupe River, California.

Sec. 3024. Yuba River Basin project, California.

Sec. 3025. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut.

Sec. 3026. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.

Sec. 3027. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.

Sec. 3028. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.

Sec. 3029. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.

Sec. 3030. Brevard County, Florida.

Sec. 3031. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration, Florida.

Sec. 3032. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects, comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.

Sec. 3033. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.

Sec. 3034. Port Sutton Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida.

Sec. 3035. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida.

Sec. 3036. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.

Sec. 3037. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.

Sec. 3038. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.

Sec. 3039. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.

Sec. 3040. Cache River Levee, Illinois.

Sec. 3041. Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 3042. Chicago River, Illinois.

Sec. 3043. Illinois River Basin restoration.

Sec. 3044. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects reconstruction pilot program.

Sec. 3045. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.

Sec. 3046. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas.

Sec. 3047. Milford Lake, Milford, Kansas.

Sec. 3048. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Sec. 3049. McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana.

Sec. 3050. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.

Sec. 3051. Regional visitor center, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.

Sec. 3052. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.

Sec. 3053. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

Sec. 3054. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet relocation assistance, Louisiana.

Sec. 3055. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.

Sec. 3056. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.

Sec. 3057. Union River, Maine.

Sec. 3058. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Sec. 3059. Cumberland, Maryland.

Sec. 3060. Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts.

Sec. 3061. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Sec. 3062. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.

Sec. 3063. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.

Sec. 3064. Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Project, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Sec. 3065. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.

Sec. 3066. L-15 levee, Missouri.

Sec. 3067. Union Lake, Missouri.

Sec. 3068. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana.

Sec. 3069. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.

Sec. 3070. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada.

Sec. 3071. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.

Sec. 3072. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and Connecticut.

Sec. 3073. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.

Sec. 3074. New York Harbor, New York, New York.

Sec. 3075. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.

Sec. 3076. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.

Sec. 3077. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Carroll Township, Ohio.

Sec. 3078. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3079. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3080. Release of reversionary interest, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3081. Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3082. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3083. Lookout Point project, Lowell, Oregon.

Sec. 3084. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 3085. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.

Sec. 3086. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.

Sec. 3087. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.

Sec. 3088. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.

Sec. 3089. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.

Sec. 3090. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.

Sec. 3091. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.

Sec. 3092. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.

Sec. 3093. Cedar Bayou, Texas.

Sec. 3094. Denison, Texas.

Sec. 3095. Freeport Harbor, Texas.

Sec. 3096. Harris County, Texas.

Sec. 3097. Connecticut River restoration, Vermont.

Sec. 3098. Dam remediation, Vermont.

Sec. 3099. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other nonnative plant control, Vermont.

Sec. 3100. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Sec. 3101. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Sec. 3102. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.

Sec. 3103. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.

Sec. 3104. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.

Sec. 3105. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington.

Sec. 3106. Lower granite pool, Washington.

Sec. 3107. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, Washington and Idaho.

Sec. 3108. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.

Sec. 3109. Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington.

Sec. 3110. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.

Sec. 3111. McDowell County, West Virginia.

Sec. 3112. Green Bay Harbor project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Sec. 3113. Underwood Creek diversion facility project, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

Sec. 3114. Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin.

Sec. 3115. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.

Sec. 3116. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site.

Sec. 3117. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management program.

Sec. 3118. Upper basin of Missouri River.

Sec. 3119. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.

Sec. 3120. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.

Sec. 3121. Great Lakes tributary models.

Sec. 3122. Upper Ohio River and tributaries navigation system new technology pilot program.

TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil.

Sec. 4002. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel.

Sec. 4003. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.

Sec. 4004. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.

Sec. 4005. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.

Sec. 4006. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena, California.

Sec. 4007. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman Island, California.

Sec. 4008. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.

Sec. 4009. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California.

Sec. 4010. Fountain Creek, North of Pueblo, Colorado.

Sec. 4011. Selenium study, Colorado.

Sec. 4012. Promontory Point third-party review, Chicago shoreline, Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 4013. Vidalia Port, Louisiana.

Sec. 4014. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.

Sec. 4015. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.

Sec. 4016. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina.

Sec. 4017. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.

Sec. 4018. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Lakes program.

Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration.

Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.

Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Sec. 5005. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.

Sec. 5006. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project, Illinois.

Sec. 5007. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

Sec. 5008. Missouri River and tributaries, mitigation, recovery and restoration, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Sec. 5009. St. Mary Project, Blackfeet Reservation, Montana.

Sec. 5010. Lower Platte River watershed restoration, Nebraska.

Sec. 5011. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.

Sec. 5012. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.

TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.

Sec. 6002. Goleta and Vicinity, California.

Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.

Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Sec. 6005. Inland Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Part II, installation of fender protection for bridges, Delaware and Maryland.

Sec. 6006. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.

Sec. 6007. Brevoort, Indiana.

Sec. 6008. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.

Sec. 6009. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.

Sec. 6010. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.

Sec. 6011. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.

Sec. 6012. Big South Fork National River and recreational area, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Sec. 6013. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.

Sec. 6014. Hazard, Kentucky.

Sec. 6015. West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky.

Sec. 6016. Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana.

Sec. 6017. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana.

Sec. 6018. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana.

Sec. 6019. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.

Sec. 6020. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, Louisiana.

Sec. 6021. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas.

Sec. 6022. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.

Sec. 6023. Northeast Harbor, Maine.

Sec. 6024. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.

Sec. 6025. Saint John River Basin, Maine.

Sec. 6026. Tenants Harbor, Maine.

Sec. 6027. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.

Sec. 6028. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.

Sec. 6029. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control, Nebraska.

Sec. 6030. Epping, New Hampshire.

Sec. 6031. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey.

Sec. 6032. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.

Sec. 6033. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.

Sec. 6034. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.

Sec. 6035. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Sec. 6036. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.

Sec. 6037. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.

Sec. 6038. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio.

Sec. 6039. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.

Sec. 6040. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 6041. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 6042. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.

Sec. 6043. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.

Sec. 6044. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.

Sec. 6045. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.

Sec. 6046. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, Texas.

Sec. 6047. Falfurrias, Texas.

Sec. 6048. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.

Sec. 6049. Lake of the Pines, Texas.

Sec. 6050. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.

Sec. 6051. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.

Sec. 6052. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

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

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) Projects With Chief's Reports- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports designated in this section:

(1) HAINES HARBOR, ALASKA- The project for navigation, Haines Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total estimated cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,960,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,740,000.

(2) TANQUE VERDE CREEK, ARIZONA- The project for ecosystem restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,706,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,706,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,000,000.

(3) SALT RIVER (VA SHLYAY AKIMEL), MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA-

(A) IN GENERAL- The project for ecosystem restoration, Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $156,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $101,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $55,100,000.

(B) COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECTS- The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the development and construction of the project described in subparagraph (A) with each Federal reclamation project located in the Salt River Basin to address statutory requirements and the operations of those projects.

(4) HAMILTON CITY, CALIFORNIA- The project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Hamilton City, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of $17,600,000.

(5) IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA- The project for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $13,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,800,000, and at an estimated total cost of $41,100,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,550,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $20,550,000.

(6) MATILIJA DAM, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- The project for ecosystem 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 $139,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $86,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $52,900,000.

(7) MIDDLE CREEK, LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- The project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $43,630,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,460,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,170,000.

(8) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH, CALIFORNIA-

(A) IN GENERAL- The project for ecosystem restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $103,012,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $65,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,412,000.

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

(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; and

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

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

(10) INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, SOUTH FLORIDA-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may carry out the project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and protection of water quality, 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.

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

(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), C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 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.

(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 Session, 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.

(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 Session, 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.

(11) MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA- The project for navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami, 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.

(12) 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 $362,260,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $181,130,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $181,130,000.

(13) EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS- The project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $201,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $130,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $71,000,000.

(14) PEORIA RIVERFRONT, ILLINOIS- The project for ecosystem restoration, Peoria Riverfront, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost of $17,760,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,540,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,220,000.

(15) WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, ILLINOIS- The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at a total cost of $16,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,830,000.

(16) 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 $10,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,700,000.

(17) LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KENTUCKY- The project for flood damage reduction, Licking River, Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $17,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,570,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,230,000.

(18) 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 $9,500,000. 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.

(19) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA-

(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 $841,100,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $546,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $294,800,000.

(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 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).

(20) 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 $204,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $129,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $74,900,000, except that the Secretary, in consultation with Vermillion and Iberia Parishes, Louisiana, is directed to 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.

(21) 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 $256,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $192,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $64,000,000.

(22) SMITH ISLAND, MARYLAND- The project for ecosystem restoration, Smith Island, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of $14,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,425,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,075,000.

(23) SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, MISSOURI- The project for flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $16,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,990,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,910,000.

(24) HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE PARK, NEW JERSEY- The project for ecosystem restoration, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 25, 2006, at a total cost of $33,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $21,480,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,570,000.

(25) MANASQUAN TO BARNEGAT INLETS, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $70,340,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $45,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,620,000, and at an estimated total cost of $117,100,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $58,550,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $58,550,000.

(26) 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 $112,640,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,220,600 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,420,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,400,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,100,000.

(27) SOUTH RIVER, NEW JERSEY- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, South River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $120,810,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $78,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $42,280,000.

(28) SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO- The project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,400,000.

(29) 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 $14,070,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,035,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000.

(30) HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OHIO- 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 $18,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,170,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,560,000.

(31) BLOOMSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA- The project for flood damage reduction, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of $43,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,150,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,150,000.

(32) 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 $4,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,940,000, 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 $7,632,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,568,000.

(33) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS-

(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.

(B) NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE- In carrying out the project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce 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.

(34) 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.

(35) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS- The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Sabine River to Corpus Christi, 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.

(36) RIVERSIDE OXBOW, FORT WORTH, TEXAS- The project for ecosystem restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a total cost of $27,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,010,000.

(37) 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 $671,340,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $26,220,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $645,120,000.

(38) DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA- The project for the 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.

(39) 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 $121,100,000, with a Federal cost of $73,220,000, and a non-Federal cost of $47,880,000; 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 the Chief of Engineers dated September 27, 2004.

(b) Project Subject to Final Report- The Secretary shall carry out the project for ecosystem restoration, Jamaica Bay, Queens and Brooklyn, New York, at a total estimated cost of $204,159,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $132,703,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $71,456,000, 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 not later than December 31, 2006.

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 $246,000,000. 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 $1,870,000,000. 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 $1,650,000,000, of which not more than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) and not more than $43,000,000 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 Pontchartain, Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne Basin; and

(ii) produces an environmental benefit to the coastal area of the State 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 projects modified under this subsection.

(B) REPORTS-

(i) IN GENERAL- Before beginning construction of the projects, the Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications to the 5 near-term projects, including cost changes, to the Louisiana Water Resources Council established by subsection (n)(1) (referred to in this section as the `Council') for approval.

(ii) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS- On approval of a report under clause (i), the Council shall submit the report 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 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall not apply to the 5 near-term projects authorized by this section.

(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 on the features included in table 3 of the report referred to in subsection (a).

(2) PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN REPORTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall submit the reports described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(B) CONSTRUCTION- The Secretary shall be authorized to construct the projects identified in the reports at the time the Committees referred to in subparagraph (A) each adopt a resolution approving the project.

(g) Nongovernmental Organizations- 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.

(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; or

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

(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- 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.

(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-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established within the Mississippi River Commission, a subgroup to be known as the `Louisiana Water Resources Council'.

(2) PURPOSES- The purposes of the Council are--

(A) to manage and oversee each aspect of the implementation of a system-wide, comprehensive plan for projects of the Corps of Engineers (including the study, planning, engineering, design, and construction of the projects or components of projects and the functions or activities of the Corps of Engineers relating to other projects) that addresses hurricane protection, flood control, ecosystem restoration, storm surge damage reduction, or navigation in the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disaster areas in the State of Louisiana; and

(B) to demonstrate and evaluate a streamlined approach to authorization of water resources projects to be studied, designed, and constructed by the Corps of Engineers.

(3) MEMBERSHIP-

(A) IN GENERAL- The president of the Mississippi River Commission shall appoint members of the Council, after considering recommendations of the Governor of Louisiana.

(B) REQUIREMENTS- The Council shall be composed of--

(i) 2 individuals with expertise in coastal ecosystem restoration, including the interaction of saltwater and freshwater estuaries; and

(ii) 2 individual with expertise in geology or civil engineering relating to hurricane and flood damage reduction and navigation.

(C) CHAIRPERSON- In addition to the members appointed under subparagraph (B), the Council shall be chaired by 1 of the 3 officers of the Corps of Engineers of the Mississippi River Commission.

(4) DUTIES- With respect to modifications under subsection (c), the Council shall--

(A) review and approve or disapprove the reports completed by the Secretary; and

(B) on approval, 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.

(5) TERMINATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Council shall terminate on the date that is 6 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(B) EFFECT- Any project modification under subsection (c) that has not been approved by the Council and submitted to Congress by the date described in subparagraph (A) shall not proceed to construction before the date on which the modification is statutorily approved by Congress.

(o) Other Projects-

(1) IN GENERAL- 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 submit a report describing the projects to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(2) CONSTRUCTION- The Secretary shall be authorized to construct the projects at the time the Committees referred to in paragraph (1) each adopt a resolution approving the project.

(p) Report-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 6 years 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 evaluating the alternative means of authorizing Corps of Engineers water resources projects under subsections (c)(3), (f)(2), and (o)(2).

(2) INCLUSIONS- The report shall include a description of--

(A) the projects authorized and undertaken under this section;

(B) the construction status of the projects; and

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

(3) 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), which 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.

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

The Secretary--

(1) shall conduct a study for flood damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas; and

(2) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):

(1) LITTLE ROCK PORT, ARKANSAS- Project for navigation, Little Rock Port, Arkansas River, Arkansas.

(2) AU SABLE RIVER, MICHIGAN- Project for navigation, Au Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.

(3) OUTER CHANNEL AND INNER HARBOR, MENOMINEE HARBOR, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN- Project for navigation, Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, Michigan and Wisconsin.

(4) MIDDLE BASS ISLAND STATE PARK, MIDDLE BASS ISLAND, OHIO- Project for navigation, Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):

(1) SAN DIEGO RIVER, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including efforts to address invasive aquatic plant species.

(2) SUISON MARSH, SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Pablo Bay, California.

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

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

(5) COLLEGE LAKE, LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia.

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Provisions

SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.

Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) is amended--

(1) by striking `SEC. 221' and inserting the following:

`SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.';

and

(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

`(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest-

`(1) IN GENERAL- After December 31, 1970, the construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest where such interest will be reimbursed for such construction under any provision of law, shall not be commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a written partnership agreement with the district engineer for the district in which the project will be carried out under which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for implementation or construction of the project or the appropriate element of the project, as the case may be; except that no such agreement shall be required if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement would exceed the amount of the contribution required from the non-Federal interest and are less than $25,000.

`(2) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES- An agreement described in paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties to perform.

`(3) OBLIGATION OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS- In any such agreement entered into by a State, or a body politic of the State which derives its powers from the State constitution, or a governmental entity created by the State legislature, the agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future appropriations for such performance and payment when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent with constitutional or statutory limitations of the State or a political subdivision of the State.

`(4) CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- An agreement under paragraph (1) shall provide that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, including a project implemented under general continuing authority, the value of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest, including--

`(i) the costs of planning (including data collection), design, management, mitigation, construction, and construction services that are provided by the non-Federal interest for implementation of the project;

`(ii) the value of materials or services provided before execution of an agreement for the project, including efforts on constructed elements incorporated into the project; and

`(iii) materials and services provided after an agreement is executed.

`(B) CONDITION- The Secretary shall credit an in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that the property or service provided as an in-kind contribution is integral to the project.

`(C) LIMITATIONS- Credit authorized for a project--

`(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project;

`(ii) shall not alter any other requirement that a non-Federal interest provide land, an easement or right-of-way, or an area for disposal of dredged material for the project; and

`(iii) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the materials, services, or other things provided by the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary.'.

SEC. 2002. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

`(a) In General- The Secretary may engage in activities (including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies, international organizations, or foreign governments to address problems of national significance to the United States.';

(2) in subsection (b), by striking `Secretary of State' and inserting `Department of State'; and

(3) in subsection (d)--

(A) by striking `$250,000 for fiscal year 2001' and inserting `$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and each fiscal year thereafter'; and

(B) by striking `or international organizations' and inserting `, international organizations, or foreign governments'.

SEC. 2003. TRAINING FUNDS.

(a) In General- The Secretary may include individuals from the non-Federal interest, including the private sector, in training classes and courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in any case in which the Secretary determines that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to include those individuals as participants.

(b) Expenses-

(1) IN GENERAL- An individual from a non-Federal interest attending a training class or course described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the training provided to the individual.

(2) PAYMENTS- Payments made by an individual for training received under subsection (a), up to the actual cost of the training--

(A) may be retained by the Secretary;

(B) shall be credited to an appropriation or account used for paying training costs; and

(C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without further appropriation, for training purposes.

(3) EXCESS AMOUNTS- Any payments received under paragraph (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury of the United States.

SEC. 2004. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.

(a) In General- On the third Tuesday of January of each year beginning January 2008, the Chief of Engineers 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 on the expenditures for the preceding fiscal year and estimated expenditures for the current fiscal year.

(b) Contents- In addition to the information described in subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed accounting of the following information:

(1) With respect to general construction, information on--

(A) projects currently under construction, including--

(i) allocations to date;

(ii) the number of years remaining to complete construction;

(iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that construction schedule; and

(iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects to complete during the current fiscal year; and

(B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design, including--

(i) the number of years the project is expected to require for completion; and

(ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that construction schedule.

(2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law 95-502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--

(A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; and

(B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance of locks and dams to ensure navigation without interruption.

(3) With respect to general investigations and reconnaissance and feasibility studies--

(A) the number of active studies;

(B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized for construction;

(C) the number of initiated studies; and

(D) the number of studies expected to be completed during the fiscal year.

(4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received for interagency and international support activities under section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).

(5) Recreation fees and lease payments.

(6) Hydropower and water storage fees.

(7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

(8) Other revenues and fees collected.

(9) With respect to permit applications and notifications, a list of individual permit applications and nationwide permit notifications, including--

(A) the date on which each permit application is filed;

(B) the date on which each permit application is determined to be complete; and

(C) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants, withdraws, or denies each permit.

(10) With respect to the project backlog, a list of authorized projects for which no funds have been allocated for the 5 preceding fiscal years, including, for each project--

(A) the authorization date;

(B) the last allocation date;

(C) the percentage of construction completed;

(D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of the project; and

(E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay.

SEC. 2005. PLANNING.

(a) Matters To Be Addressed in Planning- Section 904 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281) is amended--

(1) by striking `Enhancing' and inserting the following:

`(a) In General- Enhancing'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) Assessments- For all feasibility reports completed after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall assess whether--

`(1) the water resource project and each separable element is cost-effective; and

`(2) the water resource project complies with Federal, State, and local laws (including regulations) and public policies.'.

(b) Planning Process Improvements- The Chief of Engineers--

(1) shall, not later than 2 years after the date on which the feasibility study cost sharing agreement is signed for a project, subject to the availability of appropriations--

(A) complete the feasibility study for the project; and

(B) sign the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project;

(2) may, with the approval of the Secretary, extend the deadline established under paragraph (1) for not to exceed 4 years, for a complex or controversial study; and

(3)(A) shall adopt a risk analysis approach to project cost estimates; and

(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, shall--

(i) issue procedures for risk analysis for cost estimation; and

(ii) submit to Congress a report that includes suggested amendments to section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280).

(c) Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage Reduction Projects- A feasibility study for a project for flood damage reduction shall include, as part of the calculation of benefits and costs--

(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following completion of the proposed project;

(2) a calculation of the residual risk of loss of human life and residual risk to human safety following completion of the proposed project; and

(3) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of the proposed project.

(d) Centers of Specialized Planning Expertise-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- The Secretary may establish centers of expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for water resource projects to be carried out by the Secretary in order to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) DUTIES- A center of expertise established under this subsection shall--

(A) provide technical and managerial assistance to district commanders of the Corps of Engineers for project planning, development, and implementation;

(B) provide peer reviews of new major scientific, engineering, or economic methods, models, or analyses that will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with respect to feasibility studies;

(C) provide support for external peer review panels convened by the Secretary; and

(D) carry out such other duties as are prescribed by the Secretary.

(e) Completion of Corps of Engineers Reports-

(1) ALTERNATIVES-

(A) IN GENERAL- Feasibility and other studies and assessments of water resource problems and projects shall include recommendations for alternatives--

(i) that, as determined by the non-Federal interests for the projects, promote integrated water resources management; and

(ii) for which the non-Federal interests are willing to provide the non-Federal share for the studies or assessments.

(B) SCOPE AND PURPOSES- The scope and purposes of studies and assessments described in subparagraph (A) shall not be constrained by budgetary or other policy as a result of the inclusion of alternatives described in that subparagraph.

(C) REPORTS OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS- The reports of the Chief of Engineers shall be based solely on the best technical solutions to water resource needs and problems.

(2) REPORT COMPLETION- The completion of a report of the Chief of Engineers for a project--

(A) shall not be delayed while consideration is being given to potential changes in policy or priority for project consideration; and

(B) shall be submitted, on completion, to--

(i) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and

(ii) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(f) Completion Review-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later than 90 days after the date of completion of a report of the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a water resource project, the Secretary shall--

(A) review the report; and

(B) provide any recommendations of the Secretary regarding the water resource project to Congress.

(2) PRIOR REPORTS- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to any report of the Chief of Engineers recommending a water resource project that is complete prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete review of, and provide recommendations to Congress for, the report in accordance with paragraph (1).

SEC. 2006. WATER RESOURCES PLANNING COORDINATING COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment- The President shall establish a Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee (referred to in this subsection as the `Coordinating Committee').

(b) Membership-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Coordinating Committee shall be composed of the following members (or a designee of the member):

(A) The Secretary of the Interior.

(B) The Secretary of Agriculture.

(C) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(D) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

(E) The Secretary of Transportation.

(F) The Secretary of Energy.

(G) The Secretary of Homeland Security.

(H) The Secretary of Commerce.

(I) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(J) The Chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality.

(2) CHAIRPERSON AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- The President shall appoint--

(A) 1 member of the Coordinating Committee to serve as Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee for a term of 2 years; and

(B) an Executive Director to supervise the activities of the Coordinating Committee.

(3) FUNCTION- The function of the Coordinating Committee shall be to carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth under this section.

(c) National Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy- It is the policy of the United States that all water resources projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers shall--

(1) reflect national priorities;

(2) seek to avoid the unwise use of floodplains;

(3) minimize vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain must be used;

(4) protect and restore the functions of natural systems; and

(5) mitigate any unavoidable damage to natural systems.

(d) Water Resource Priorities Report-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Coordinating Committee, in collaboration with the Secretary, shall submit to the President and Congress a report describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage from flooding and related storm damage, including--

(A) the risk to human life;

(B) the risk to property; and

(C) the comparative risks faced by different regions of the United States.

(2) INCLUSIONS- The report under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) an assessment of the extent to which programs in the United States relating to flooding address flood risk reduction priorities;

(B) the extent to which those programs may be unintentionally encouraging development and economic activity in floodprone areas;

(C) recommendations for improving those programs with respect to reducing and responding to flood risks; and

(D) proposals for implementing the recommendations.

(e) Modernizing Water Resources Planning Guidelines-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary and the Coordinating Committee shall, in collaboration with each other, review and propose updates and revisions to modernize the planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars by which the Corps of Engineers analyzes and evaluates water projects. In carrying out the review, the Coordinating Committee and the Secretary shall consult with the National Academy of Sciences for recommendations regarding updating planning documents.

(2) PROPOSED REVISIONS- In conducting a review under paragraph (1), the Coordinating Committee and the Secretary shall consider revisions to improve water resources project planning through, among other things--

(A) requiring the use of modern economic principles and analytical techniques, credible schedules for project construction, and current discount rates as used by other Federal agencies;

(B) eliminating biases and disincentives to providing projects to low-income communities, including fully accounting for the prevention of loss of life under section 904 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281);

(C) eliminating biases and disincentives that discourage the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources development and management, and fully accounting for the flood protection and other values of healthy natural systems;

(D) promoting environmental restoration projects that reestablish natural processes;

(E) assessing and evaluating the impacts of a project in the context of other projects within a region or watershed;

(F) analyzing and incorporating lessons learned from recent studies of Corps of Engineers programs and recent disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the Great Midwest Flood of 1993;

(G) encouraging wetlands conservation; and

(H) ensuring the effective implementation of the policies of this Act.

(3) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION- The Coordinating Committee and the Secretary shall solicit public and expert comments regarding any revision proposed under paragraph (2).

(4) REVISION OF PLANNING GUIDANCE-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date on which a review under paragraph (1) is completed, the Secretary, after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure Act'), shall implement such proposed updates and revisions to the planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers under paragraph (2) as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(B) EFFECT- Effective beginning on the date on which the Secretary implements the first update or revision under paragraph (1), subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17) shall not apply to the Corps of Engineers.

(5) REPORT-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate, and to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of Representatives, a report describing any revision of planning guidance under paragraph (4).

(B) PUBLICATION- The Secretary shall publish the report under subparagraph (A) in the Federal Register.

SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

(a) Definitions- In this section:

(1) CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES- The term `construction activities' means development of detailed engineering and design specifications during the preconstruction engineering and design phase and the engineering and design phase of a water resources project carried out by the Corps of Engineers, and other activities carried out on a water resources project prior to completion of the construction and to turning the project over to the local cost-share partner.

(2) PROJECT STUDY- The term `project study' means a feasibility report, reevaluation report, or environmental impact statement prepared by the Corps of Engineers.

(b) Director of Independent Review- The Secretary shall appoint in the Office of the Secretary a Director of Independent Review. The Director shall be selected from among individuals