U.S. Congress - Text of H.R.5892 as Reported in House Water Resources Development Act of 2010
The easiest way to email your members of Congress
Donate NowH.R.5892 - Water Resources Development Act of 2010
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.
| Version | Word Count | Changes From Previous Version | Percent Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced in House | 19,526 | n/a | n/a |
| Reported in House | 20,043 | 37 Show Changes Hide Changes | 3% |
Key: changed or removed text inserted or modified text
Loading Bill Text
Rollover any line of text to comment and/or link to it.
HR 5892 IHRHCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Union Calendar No. 391CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
111th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
2d SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
H. R. 5892CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
[Report No. 111-654]CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
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
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
July 28, 2010CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
July 28, 2010CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and InfrastructureCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
September 29, 2010CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
September 29, 2010CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Additional sponsor: Mr. COSTELLOCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
September 29, 2010CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
September 29, 2010CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printedCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on July 28, 2010]CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on July 28, 2010]CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
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
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 2010’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for 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. Small projects for flood damage reduction. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 1003. 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 and estuary restoration. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 1008. Small projects for aquatic plant control. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2002. Fish and wildlife mitigation. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2003. Remote and subsistence harbors. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2004. Revision of project partnership agreement. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2005. Independent peer review. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2006. Safety assurance review. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2007. Funding for harbor maintenance programs. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2008. Funding to process permits. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2009. Project modifications for improvement of environment. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2010. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2011. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric facilities. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2012. Repeal. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2013. Cost estimates for feasibility reports. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2014. Mitigation status report. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 2015. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3002. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3003. Rio de Flag, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3004. Tres Rios, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3005. Russian River project, Sonoma County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3006. South Sacramento County streams, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3007. Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3008. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3009. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3010. Kissimmee River restoration, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3011. Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3012. Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3013. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3014. Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3015. Wood River levee system reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3016. Little Calumet River, Indiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3017. Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3018. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3019. Ada, Minnesota. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3020. Montevideo, Minnesota. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3021. Two Harbors, Minnesota. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3022. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3023. Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3024. Ocean Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3025. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3026. Spring Creek, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3027. Hocking River basin, Monday Creek, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3028. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem restoration, Oregon and Washington. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3029. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3030. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3031. Houston-Galveston navigation channels, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3032. Project reauthorizations. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 3033. Project deauthorizations. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 4001. Hollis, Alaska. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4002. Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4003. Lower Santa Cruz River, Casa Grande, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4004. Maricopa County, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4005. Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties, Arkansas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4006. Oil Trough, Arkansas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4007. Randolph County, Arkansas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4008. Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4009. Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4010. Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4011. Lodi Lake, Lodi, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4012. Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4013. Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4014. Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4015. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4016. Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4017. Sacramento Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4018. San Pablo Bay, Hercules, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4019. Stockton, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4020. Tijuana River environmental restoration, San Diego, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4021. Tijuana River wetlands restoration, San Diego County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4022. Ventura River, Ventura County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4023. Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4024. Fountain Spring watershed, Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4025. Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4026. Holly Pond and Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4027. Housatonic River, New Milford, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4028. Long Island Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4029. Meriden, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4030. South Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4031. West River, New Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4032. Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4033. Washington, District of Columbia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4034. Lake County, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4035. Marion County, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4036. Miami, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4037. Oakland Park, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4038. Riviera Beach, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4039. South Daytona, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4040. Tampa, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4041. Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4042. Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4043. Study for water supply, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4044. Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4045. Agat and Merizo, Guam. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4046. Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4047. Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4048. Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4049. Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4050. Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4051. Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4052. Middle Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4053. North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4054. River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4055. Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4056. Village of Skokie, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4057. Bowman Creek, South Bend, Indiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4058. Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4059. Burlington, Iowa. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4060. Beneficial use of dredged material, Louisiana and Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4061. Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4062. LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties, Louisiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4063. Ruth Canal freshwater diversion, Vermilion, Louisiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4064. Anacostia River watershed, Prince George’s County, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4065. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline study, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4066. Dredged material disposal, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4067. Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island recreation and public access, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4068. Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4069. Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4070. Southern Maine/New Hampshire dredged material disposal study, Maine and New Hampshire. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4071. Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and Essex Counties, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4072. Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4073. Mystic River watershed, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4074. Quequechan River, Fall River, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4075. Clinton River, Clinton Township, Michigan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4076. Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4077. Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4078. Amory, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4079. Coastal Mississippi ecosystem restoration, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4080. Fulton, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4081. Gulfport, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4082. Lucedale, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4083. Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes County, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4084. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4085. Little Blue River, Jackson County, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4086. St. Louis, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4087. Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4088. New Hampshire. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4089. Piscataqua River, New Hampshire. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4090. Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4091. Beverly, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4092. Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4093. Haddon Township, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4094. Rahway River watershed, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4095. Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4096. Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4097. Township of Ocean, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4098. Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4099. Dona Ana, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4100. Hidalgo County, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4101. Otero County, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4102. Valencia County, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4103. Glen Cove, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4104. Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4105. Kill van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4106. Mariners Marsh and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4107. New York, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4108. Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4109. Queens, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4110. Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4111. Roosevelt island, East River, New York, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4112. Charlotte, North Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4113. Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4114. Missouri River and tributaries, South and Central North Dakota, North Dakota. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4115. Big Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4116. Brandywine Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4117. Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4118. Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed, Summit County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4119. Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4120. Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4121. Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4122. Ohio River, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4123. Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4124. Stark County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4125. Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4126. Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4127. West Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4128. Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4129. Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4130. Oregon Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters, Oregon. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4131. Port Orford, Oregon. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4132. Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4133. Delaware River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4134. Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4135. Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4136. Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4137. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4138. Guayama, Puerto Rico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4139. Rincon, Puerto Rico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4140. Providence, Rhode Island. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4141. South Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4142. James River, South Dakota. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4143. Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4144. Brazos River, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4145. Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4146. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Barbours Cut), Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4147. Port of Galveston, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4148. Simsboro Aquifer, City of Balstrop, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4149. Navasota River watershed, Grimes County, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4150. Rio Grande basin, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4151. Roma, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4152. Cottonwood Heights, Utah. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4153. Emery Town, Utah. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4154. Big Sandy River reallocation study, Virginia and West Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4155. Buckroe and Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4156. Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4157. Hampton, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4158. James River watershed, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4159. Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4160. Green River, Kent, Washington. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4161. Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 4162. Lake Michigan shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 5001. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5002. Saint Lawrence Seaway. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5003. Watershed management. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5004. Comprehensive shoreline restoration. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5005. Northeast Coastal Region ecosystem restoration. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5006. Anacostia watershed, District of Columbia and Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5007. Egmont Key, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5008. Cambridge, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5009. Hart-Miller Island, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5010. Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5011. Sharkey County, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5012. Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Sec. 5013. Sense of Congress on the promotion of General Michael J. Walsh to Major General, United States Army. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of the Army. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports designated in this section: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, DORCHESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND- The project for ecosystem restoration, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2009, at a total cost of $1,612,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $1,045,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $567,000,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2009, at a total cost of $1,182,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $746,750,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $435,850,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET (TOPSAIL BEACH), PENDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), Pender County, North Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 2009, at a total cost of $32,131,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,708,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,423,000, and at an estimated total cost of $113,904,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,952,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,952,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (
(1) DEL ROSA CHANNEL, SAN BERNADINO, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Del Rosa Channel, San Bernadino, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) LAGUNA CREEK, VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Laguna Creek, Vacaville, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) ULATIS CREEK, VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Ulatis Creek, Vacaville, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) SANDERSON GULCH, DENVER, COLORADO- Project for flood damage reduction, Sanderson Gulch, Denver, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) WILLOW CREEK, CREEDE, COLORADO- Project for flood damage reduction, Willow Creek, Creede, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) BIG ECON RIVER, ORANGE, FLORIDA- Project for flood damage reduction, Big Econ River, Orange, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(7) BAY GALL CREEK, WARNER ROBBINS, GEORGIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Bay Gall Creek, Warner Robbins, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(8) DES PLAINES RIVER, PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage reduction, Des Plaines River, Park Ridge, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(9) KISHWAUKEE RIVER, DEKALB, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage reduction, Kishwaukee River, DeKalb, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(10) NAVAJO CREEK, PALOS HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage reduction, Navajo Creek, Palos Heights, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(11) STONY CREEK, OAK LAWN, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage reduction, Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(12) VICINITY OF THE 71ST STREET DITCH, JUSTICE, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage reduction, in the vicinity of the 71st Street Ditch, Justice, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(13) WEST BRANCH OF MILL CREEK, PALOS PARK, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage reduction, West Branch of Mill Creek, Palos Park, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(14) DRY RUN CREEK, WATERLOO, IOWA- Project for flood damage reduction, Dry Run Creek, Waterloo, Iowa. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(15) POND MILL AND BLACK POND CREEK, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY- Project for flood damage reduction, Pond Mill and Black Pond Creek, Louisville, Kentucky. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(16) BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND- Project for flood damage reduction, Baltimore City, Maryland, in the vicinity of Druid Hill Park. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(17) PINE TREE BROOK, AVON, MASSACHUSETTS- Project for flood damage reduction, Pine Tree Brook, Avon, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(18) PINE TREE BROOK, MILTON, MASSACHUSETTS- Project for flood damage reduction, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(19) HARDING CANAL SEAWALL, DETROIT, MICHIGAN- Project for flood damage reduction, Harding Canal Seawall, Detroit, Michigan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(20) BIG RIVER, JEFFERSONHIGH RIDGE, MISSOURI- Project for flood damage reduction, Big River, JeffersonHigh Ridge, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(21) SAW MILL RIVER BASIN, GREEHBURGH, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, Saw Mill River basin, Greehburgh, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(22) SPARKILL CREEK, ORANGETOWN, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(23) INDEPENDENCE, OHIO- Project for flood damage reduction, Independence, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(24) VALLEY VIEW, OHIO- Project for flood damage reduction, Valley View, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(25) WINYEH BAY, GEORGETOWN, SOUTH CAROLINA- Project for flood damage reduction, Winyeh Bay, Georgetown, South Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(26) DEL RIO, VAL VERDE, TEXAS- Project for flood damage reduction, Del Rio, Val Verde, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(27) CRAFORD BAY SEAWALL, PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Craford Bay Seawall, Portsmouth, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(28) SOUTHERN BRANCH OF THE ELIZABETH RIVER, PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA- Project for flood damage reduction, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(29) ROXBURY AND WESTPOINT TOWNSHIPS, WISCONSIN- Project for flood damage reduction, Roxbury and Westpoint Townships, Wisconsin. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (
(1) NAKNEK RIVER, NAKNEK, ALASKA- Project for emergency streambank protection, Naknek River, Naknek, Alaska. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) QUINNIPIAC RIVER, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT- Project for emergency streambank protection, Quinnipiac River, New Haven, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) BISCAYNE BAY, NORTH BAY VILLAGE, FLORIDA- Project for emergency streambank protection, Biscayne Bay, North Bay Village, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) BRONX RIVER, NEW YORK, NEW YORK- Project for emergency streambank protection, Bronx River, New York, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) OHIO RIVER, IRONTON, OHIO- Project for emergency streambank protection, Ohio River, Ironton, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND- Project for emergency streambank protection, Newport, Rhode Island. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(7) TIVERTON, RHODE ISLAND- Project for emergency streambank protection, Tiverton, Rhode Island. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (
(1) DETROIT RIVER, WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN- Project for navigation, Detroit River, Wyandotte, Michigan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) STOUTS CREEK, LACEY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY- Project for navigation, Stouts Creek, Lacey Township, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) Brown’s RIVER, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK- Project for navigation, Brown’s River, Nassau County, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) DETROIT HARBOR, WISCONSIN- Project for navigation, Detroit Harbor, Wisconsin. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (
(1) RHEEM CREEK, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rheem Creek, Contra Costa County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) RODEO CREEK, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rodeo Creek, Contra Costa County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY RESTORATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (
(1) EMERYVILLE HARBOR, EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Emeryville Harbor, Emeryville, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) LOS ANGELES RIVER, CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Los Angeles River, Cudahy, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) LAGUNA SALADA, PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Laguna Salada, Pacifica, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) ANIMAS RIVER, LA PLATA, COLORADO- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Animas River, La Plata, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) NORTH FORK OF THE GUNNISON RIVER, DELTA, COLORADO- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, North Fork of the Gunnison River, Delta, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) LINE AND CANE CREEKS, HENRY COUNTY, GEORGIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Line and Cane Creeks, Henry County, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(7) BREMME CREEK, DUPAGE, ILLINOIS- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Bremme Creek, DuPage, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(8) BLACKBERRY CREEK, KENDALL, ILLINOIS- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Blackberry Creek, Kendall, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(9) GOMPERS PARK, NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Gompers Park, North Branch Chicago River, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(10) KANKAKEE RIVER, WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Kankakee River, Will County, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(11) PRAIRIE CREEK WATERSHED, WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Prairie Creek Watershed, Will County, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(12) WEST BRANCH OF THE DUPAGE RIVER, DUPAGE, ILLINOIS- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, West Branch of the DuPage River, DuPage, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(13) LONG CREEK WATERSHED, CUMBERLAND, MAINE- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Long Creek Watershed, Cumberland, Maine. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(14) CABIN BRANCH WATERSHED, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Cabin Branch Watershed, Prince George’s County, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(15) LITTLE PAINT BRANCH STREAM, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Little Paint Branch Stream, Prince George’s County, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(16) LOWER BEAVERDAM CREEK, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lower Beaverdam Creek, Prince George’s County, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(17) NORTHEAST ANACOSTIA RIVER, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Northeast Anacostia River, Prince George’s County, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(18) NORTHWEST ANACOSTIA RIVER, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Northwest Anacostia River, Prince George’s County, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(19) ASSABET RIVER, MIDDLESEX AND WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Assabet River, Middlesex and Worcester, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(20) LEWIS BAY, YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lewis Bay, Yarmouth, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(21) Pig’s EYE LAKE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Pig’s Eye Lake, St. Paul, Minnesota. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(22) BARNEGAT BAY, OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Barnegat Bay, Ocean County, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(23) BRANCHPORT CREEK, OCEANPORT BOROUGH, NEW JERSEY- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Branchport Creek, Oceanport Borough, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(24) HACKENSACK RIVER, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Hackensack River, Hudson County, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(25) LAKE TOPANEMUS, FREEHOLD, NEW JERSEY- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lake Topanemus, Freehold, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(26) LAS CRUCES DAM, DONA ANA, NEW MEXICO- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Las Cruces Dam, Dona Ana, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(27) PUGSLEY CREEK, CASTLE HILL, NEW YORK- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Pugsley Creek, Castle Hill, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(28) OLENTANGY RIVER, FRANKLIN, OHIO- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Olentangy River, Franklin, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(29) SCIOTO RIVER, FRANKLIN, OHIO- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Scioto River, Franklin, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(30) WOONASQUATUCKET RIVER, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Woonasquatucket River, Providence, Rhode Island. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(31) CLAYTOR LAKE, PULASKI, VIRGINIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Claytor Lake, Pulaski, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 3 of the Act entitled ‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’, approved August 13, 1946 (
(1) DEERFIELD BEACH, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA- Project for shoreline protection, Deerfield Beach, Broward County, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) BARNEGAT, OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY- Project for shoreline protection, Barnegat, Ocean County, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) MANHASSET BAY, PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK- Project for shoreline protection, Manhasset Bay, Port Washington, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL.
(a) In General- The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for aquatic nuisance plant control in the Republican River basin, Colorado, under section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (
(b) Special Rule- In carrying out the project under subsection (a), the Secretary may control and eradicate riverine nuisance plants. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Limitation; Savings Provision- Section 221(a)(4)(E) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (
‘(ii) LIMITATION- In any case in which a specific provision of law provides for a non-Federal interest to receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study for, or construction or operation and maintenance of, a water resources project, the Secretary shall apply-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(I) the specific provision of law instead of this paragraph; or CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(II) at the request of the non-Federal interest, the specific provision of law and such provisions of this paragraph as the non-Federal interest may request. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(iii) SAVINGS PROVISION- Nothing in this subparagraph affects the applicability of subsection (a)(4)(C).’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Water Resources Project Defined- Section 221(b) of such Act (
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by moving subparagraphs (A) and (B) (as so redesignated) and the matter following such subparagraphs 2 ems to the right; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) by striking ‘(b)’ and all that follows through ‘The term’ and inserting the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(b) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(1) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST- The term’; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) by adding at the end the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(2) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT- The term ‘water resources project’ includes projects studied, reviewed, designed, constructed, operated and maintained, or otherwise subject to Federal participation under the authority of the civil works program of the Secretary of the Army for the purposes of navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction, water supply, recreation, hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife conservation, water quality, environmental infrastructure, resource protection and development, and related purposes.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Technical Correction- Section 221(c) of such Act (
SEC. 2002. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
(a) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals- Section 906(d)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (
(1) in the first sentence-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) by inserting ‘for damages to ecological resources, including terrestrial and aquatic resources, and’ after ‘mitigate’; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) by inserting ‘ecological resources and’ after ‘impact on’; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) by inserting ‘without the implementation of mitigation measures’ before the period; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by inserting before the last sentence the following: ‘If the Secretary determines that mitigation to in-kind conditions is not possible, the Secretary shall identify in the report the basis for that determination.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Mitigation Requirements- Section 906(d)(3)(A) of such Act (
SEC. 2003. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.
Section 2006 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (
‘(c) Applicability- This section shall apply to project studies that include-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(1) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (
); or CommentsClose CommentsPermalink 33 U.S.C. 2215(d) ‘(2) a detailed project report, as defined in such section 105(d) and carried out under section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (
).’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink 33 U.S.C. 577(a)
SEC. 2004. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
Section 2008(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (
SEC. 2005. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.
(a) Timing of Peer Review- Section 2034(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(3) REASONS FOR TIMING- If the Chief of Engineers does not initiate a peer review for a project study at a time described in paragraph (2), the Chief shall make publicly available, including on the Internet, for each of such times the reasons for not conducting the review, and shall include the reasons in the decision document for the project study.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Establishment of Panels- Section 2034(c)(4) of such Act (
‘(4) CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION- Upon identification of a project study for peer review under this section, but prior to initiation of the review by the panel of experts, the Chief of Engineers shall-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) notify the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives of the review; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) make publicly available, including on the Internet, information on-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(i) the dates scheduled for beginning and ending the review; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(ii) the entity that has the contract for the review; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(iii) the names and qualifications of the panel of experts.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Recommendations of Panel- Section 2034(f) of such Act (
‘(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS- After receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall make available to the public, including on the Internet, and transmit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) a copy of the report within 3 days of receiving the report; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) a copy of any written response of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained in the report within 3 days of the date of the response. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(3) INCLUSION IN PROJECT STUDY- A report on a project study from a panel of experts under this section and the written response of the Chief of Engineers shall be included in the final decision document for the project study.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2006. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.
Section 2035 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (
‘(i) Nonapplicability of FACA- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a safety assurance review conducted under this section.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2007. FUNDING FOR HARBOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Guarantee- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) IN GENERAL- The total budget resources made available from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund each fiscal year pursuant to section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) shall be equal to the level of receipts plus interest credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for that fiscal year. Such amounts may be used only for harbor maintenance programs described in section 9505(c) of such Code. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) GUARANTEE- No funds may be appropriated for harbor maintenance programs described in such section unless the amount described in paragraph (1) has been provided. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) TOTAL BUDGET RESOURCES- The term ‘total budget resources’ means the total amount made available by appropriations Acts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for a fiscal year for making expenditures under section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) LEVEL OF RECEIPTS PLUS INTEREST- The term ‘level of receipts plus interest’ means the level of taxes and interest credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a fiscal year as set forth in the President’s budget baseline projection as defined in section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (
SEC. 2008. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘permits under the jurisdiction’ and inserting ‘permits of such entities related to projects for a public purpose under the jurisdiction’; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(b) Effect on Permitting- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(1) IN GENERAL- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under subsection (a) will not impact impartial decision-making with respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(2) IMPARTIAL DECISIONMAKING- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation of permits carried out using funds accepted under this section shall-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) be reviewed by the District Commander of the Corps District in which the project or activity is located, unless the evaluation of the permit is initially conducted by the District Commander whereby the review shall be conducted by the Commander of the Corps Division in which the District is located; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) utilize the same procedures for decisions that would otherwise be required for the evaluation of permits for similar projects or activities not carried out using funds authorized under this section. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(c) Limitation on Use of Funds- None of the funds accepted under this section shall be used to carry out a review of the evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(2)(A). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(d) Public Availability- The Secretary shall ensure that all final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized under this section are made available to the public, including on the Internet.’; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) in subsection (e) (as redesignated), by striking ‘2010’ and inserting ‘2016’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2009. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.
Section 1135(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (
SEC. 2010. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY RESTORATION.
Section 206(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (
SEC. 2011. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES.
(a) In General- Section 314 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (
‘SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES.
‘Activities currently performed by personnel under the direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation and maintenance of navigation or hydroelectric power generating facilities, including all personnel under the direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation and maintenance of navigational infrastructure such as floodgates, locks, and dams, at Corps of Engineers water resources projects, are considered to be inherently governmental functions and not commercial activities. This section does not prohibit contracting out major maintenance or other functions that are currently contracted out or studying services not directly connected with project maintenance and operations.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to section 314 and inserting the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘Sec. 314. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric facilities.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2012. REPEAL.
Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (
SEC. 2013. COST ESTIMATES FOR FEASIBILITY REPORTS.
Section 905(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (
‘(5) COST ESTIMATES FOR FEASIBILITY REPORTS- In preparing a feasibility report under this subsection, the Secretary shall include in the report, and any budget documents (including justification materials) submitted pursuant to
, an accounting of the total cost of the recommended plan and an estimate of the Federal and non-Federal participation in the plan based on the following scenarios: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code
‘(A) The cost of the project based on optimal levels of Federal funding for the recommended plan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) The estimated cost of the project, based on a 50 percent increase in the period for implementation of the recommended plan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(C) The estimated cost of the project, based on a 100 percent increase in the period for implementation of the recommended plan.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2014. MITIGATION STATUS REPORT.
Section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(3) INFORMATION INCLUDED- In reporting the status of all projects included in the report, the Secretary shall-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) use a uniform methodology for determining the status of all projects included in the report; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(B) use a methodology that describes both a qualitative and quantitative status for all projects in the report; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(C) provide specific dates for and participants in the consultations required under section 906(d)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (
).’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink 33 U.S.C. 2283(d)(4)(B)
SEC. 2015. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS.
(a) Restriction- None of the funds authorized or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Exceptions- Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or category of cases in which the Secretary finds that-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the public interest; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Public Notice of Waiver Request- If the Secretary receives a request to waive the application of subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish in a timely manner that request online and in the Federal Register. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(d) Justification for Waiver- If the Secretary determines that it is necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding under subsection (b), the Secretary shall publish online and in the Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the provision is being waived. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(e) Application- This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3001. DOUGLAS HARBOR, JUNEAU, ALASKA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for navigation, Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska, being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (
SEC. 3002. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, ARIZONA.
The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 303 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2600), and section 3008 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1107), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $55,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $50,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,400,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3003. RIO DE FLAG, ARIZONA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576) and modified by section 3007 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1107), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $77,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $50,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $27,000,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3004. TRES RIOS, ARIZONA.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $230,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $149,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $80,500,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3005. RUSSIAN RIVER PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, water conservation, and related purposes in the Russian River basin, California, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 177), and the project for Russian River, Dry Creek, California, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1192), are modified as follows: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) The Secretary shall review the biological opinion on the water supply, flood control, and channel maintenance operations conducted by the Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control District, as transmitted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on September 24, 2008. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) If the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary is authorized to construct the project at a total cost of $92,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $59,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $32,200,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3006. SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California, authorized by section 101(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $104,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $67,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,800,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3007. CHATFIELD RESERVOIR, COLORADO.
Section 116 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (123 Stat. 608) is amended by striking ‘Colorado Department of Natural Resources is authorized’ and inserting ‘Colorado Department of Natural Resources, or its assignee, is authorized’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3008. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS.
Section 5056(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1213) is amended by striking ‘2011’ and inserting ‘2015’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3009. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The project for flood control, Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688; 49 Stat. 1574) and modified by section 301(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707) and section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a Federal cost of $8,100,000, in accordance with the post authorization change report dated June 29, 1998. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3010. KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION, FLORIDA.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Kissimmee River Restoration, Florida, authorized by section 101(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $852,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $426,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $426,000,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3011. PONCE DE LEON INLET, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation and related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $15,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,500,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3012. SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GEORGIA.
The project for navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia, authorized by section 101(b)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $675,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $405,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $270,000,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3013. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS PROJECT, ILLINOIS.
(a) Authorization- Section 3061(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1121) is amended-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I in its current location or at an alternative location, as determined appropriate by the Secretary;’; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘June 14, 2005’ and inserting ‘November 21, 2003, as amended on July 14, 2005’; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as subparagraphs (D), (E) and (F), respectively; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(C) acquire real estate interests necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of Barrier I and Barrier II;’; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) by striking ‘and’ at the end of subparagraph (E) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection); CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) and inserting ‘; and’; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(7) by adding at the end the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(G) construct additional barriers or other fish deterrents at other locations in the vicinity of the Chicago Area Waterway System, if determined appropriate by the Secretary.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Use of Credit- Section 3061(b)(2) of such Act (121 Stat. 1121) is amended by striking ‘paragraph (1)(E)’ and inserting ‘paragraph (1)(F)’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Feasibility Study- Section 3061(d) of such Act (121 Stat. 1121) is amended by adding the end the following: ‘The study shall include a fully developed analysis of an alternative for hydrologic separation between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins. The hydrologic separation alternative shall include identification of measures to prevent the transfer of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins through surface water.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3014. LOWER OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS AND KENTUCKY.
The project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 and 53, Illinois and Kentucky, authorized by section 3(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $1,991,000,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3015. WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois, authorized by section 1001(20) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1053), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $120,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $78,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $42,000,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3016. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 19986 (100 Stat. 4115) and modified by section 127 of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $275,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $206,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $69,000,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3017. RHODES POINT JETTY, SMITH ISLAND, MARYLAND.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for navigation, Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland, being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (
SEC. 3018. MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
Section 522 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2656) is amended by striking ‘draft evaluation report of the New England District Engineer entitled ‘Phase I Muddy River Master Plan’, dated June 2000’ and inserting ‘Final Decision Document and Environmental Assessment Report of the New England District Engineer entitled ‘Muddy River Flood Control and Ecosystem Restoration, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts’, dated September 2003, at a total cost of $79,200,000’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3019. ADA, MINNESOTA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (
SEC. 3020. MONTEVIDEO, MINNESOTA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for flood damage reduction, Montevideo, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (
SEC. 3021. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.
Section 3101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1133) is amended by striking ‘$7,000,000’ and inserting ‘$14,000,000’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3022. BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.
The project for flood control, Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $45,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,125,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,375,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3023. LOWER ASSUNPINK CREEK, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (
SEC. 3024. OCEAN GATE, OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for emergency streambank protection, Ocean Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey, being carried out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (
SEC. 3025. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), as amended by section 3122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1139), is further amended by striking ‘$20,000,000’ and inserting ‘$27,000,000’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3026. SPRING CREEK, NEW YORK.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Spring Creek, New York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (
SEC. 3027. HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OHIO.
Section 1001(37)(B)(iii) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1055) is amended by striking ‘$1,270,000’ and inserting ‘$12,000,000’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3028. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AND TILLAMOOK BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.
Section 536(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2662) is amended by striking ‘$30,000,000’ and inserting ‘$45,000,000’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3029. CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.
The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, authorized by section 1001(40) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1056) is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $447,604,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $183,827,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $263,777,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3030. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.
The project for flood control, Trinity River and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ‘An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’, approved March 2, 1945, and modified by section 5141 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1253), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $882,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $573,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $308,700,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3031. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TEXAS.
The project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the boundaries of the Galveston channel approximately 2600 feet beyond Pier 38, if the Secretary determines that the extension is feasible. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3032. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.
The following project may be carried out by the Secretary and no construction on any such project may be initiated until the Secretary determines that the project is feasible: The Vincennes, Indiana portion of the project for flood control, Wabash River basin, Illinois and Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649) and deauthorized by section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4209). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3033. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) In General- The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON CHANNEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA- The portion of the project for navigation, Potomac River, Washington Channel, District of Columbia, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 Stat. 1028), beginning at Washington Harbor Channel Geometry Centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship channel, Centerline Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 441,948.20, East 1,303,969.30, as stated and depicted on the Condition Survey Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and Magazine Bar Shoal Channels, Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 of 6, prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district, July 2007; thence departing the aforementioned centerline traveling the following courses and distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds E., 200.00 feet to a point, on the outline of said 400-foot-wide channel thence binding on said outline the following three courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point, thence; S. 78 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to a point binding on the centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational channel at computed Centerline Station No. 65+54.31, coordinates North 438,923.9874, East 1,306,159.9738, thence; continuing with the aforementioned centerline the following courses and distances: N. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 68+85.10, thence; N. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds W., 2,015.56 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 89+00.67, thence; N. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds W., 1,472.26 feet to the point of beginning. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) CHICAGO HARBOR, ILLINOIS- The portion of the project for navigation, Chicago Harbor, authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of March 3, 1899 and March 2, 1919, beginning at the southwest corner of Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago sluice gate that abuts the north wall of the Chicago River Lock thence running north for approximately 290 feet, thence running east approximately 1,000 feet, thence running south approximately 290 feet, thence running west approximately 1,000 feet to the point of origin. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) IPSWICH RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS- The portion of the project for navigation, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, adopted by the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 5, 1886, consisting of a 4-foot channel located at the entrance to the inner harbor at Ipswich Harbor, lying northwesterly of a line commencing at: N3,074,938.09, E837,154.87, thence running easterly approximately 60 feet to a point with coordinates N3,074,972.62, E837,203.93. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) MENEMSHA CREEK, MASSACHUSETTS- The portion of the project for navigation, Menemsha Creek, Massachusetts, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1945, consisting of the following areas-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) beginning at a point, N129,112.54, E1,566,926.30, running north 52 degrees 12 minutes 55.9 seconds east 208.68 feet to a point N129,240.39, E1,567,091.22, running south 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds east 170.0 feet to a point N129,203.51, E1,567,257.17, running south 37 degrees 25 minutes 45.4 seconds east 101.04 feet to a point N129,123.28, E1,567,318.58, running north 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds west 223.32 feet to a point N129,171.72, E 1,567,100.58, running south 52 degrees 12 minutes 55.9 seconds west 174.00 feet to a point N129,065.12, E1,566,963.06, running north 37 degrees 47 minutes 04.1 seconds west 60.00 feet to the point of origin, and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) beginning at a point, N128,895.78, E1,566,940.39, thence running north 52 degrees 31 minutes 25.8 seconds east 135.91 feet to a point N128,978.47, E1,567,048.25, thence running south 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds east 80.63 feet to a point N128,960.98, E1,567,126.96, thence running south 37 degrees 25 minutes 32.9 seconds east 70.67 feet to a point N128,904.86, E1,567,169.91, thence running north 73 degrees 59 minutes 15.6 seconds west 139.90 feet to a point N128,943.45, E 1,567,035.44, thence running south 52 degrees 31 minutes 25.8 seconds west 103.96 feet to a point N128,880.20, E1,566,952.94, thence running north 38 degrees 50 minutes 43.8 seconds west 20.01 feet to the point of origin. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RHODE ISLAND- The portion of the project for navigation, Block Island Harbor of Refuge, Rhode Island, adopted by the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 11, 1870, consisting of the cut-stone breakwater lining the west side of the Inner Basin, beginning at a point, N32,179.55, E312,625.53, thence running northerly approximately 76.59 feet to a point with coordinates N326,655.92, E312,631.32, thence running northerly approximately 206.81 feet to a point with coordinates N32,858.33, E312,673.74, thence running easterly approximately 109.00 feet to a point with coordinates N32,832.15, E312,779.54. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Additional Deauthorizations- The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except with respect to any portion of such a project that has been completed before such date or is under construction on such date: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) The project for flood protection and related purposes, Cache River basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) The Lower White River, Big Creek and tributaries, Arkansas, element of the project for flood control and improvement of the Lower Mississippi River, authorized by section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), and modified by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) The project for navigation, Noyo River and Harbor, California, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176) and modified by section 146 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2931). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) The project for navigation, Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana, to Dangerfield, Texas, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) The project for flood control, Hocking River at Logan, Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4122). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) The Shipyard River Upper Channel and Upper Turning basin elements of the project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4096). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(7) The environmental enhancements element of the project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek and Johns Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(8) The recreation element of the project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek and Johns Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(9) The project for flood protection, Santa Barbara County Coastal Streams and tributaries in the area of Goleta, California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826) and modified by section 102(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4804). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(10) The project for flood control, Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(11) The project for flood control, Buena Vista, Virginia, authorized by section 101(a)(24) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610) and modified by section 118(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4824). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE IV--STUDIES
CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE IV--STUDIES CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4001. HOLLIS, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements, Hollis, Alaska. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4002. BULLARD WASH, GOODYEAR, ARIZONA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4003. LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water resource purposes for the Lower Santa Cruz River study area, Casa Grande, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4004. MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, recreation, and related water resource purposes, including nonstructural solutions, for Maricopa County, Arizona. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4005. OUACHITA RIVER, OUACHITA, UNION, AND ASHLEY COUNTIES, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, bank stabilization, and related water resource purposes for the Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties, Arkansas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4006. OIL TROUGH, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Oil Trough, Arkansas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4007. RANDOLPH COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Randolph County, Arkansas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4008. BERKELEY MARINA, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements for Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4009. CHELSEA WETLANDS, HERCULES, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and flood damage reduction for Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4010. COLORADO LAGOON AND ALAMITOS BAY, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration between Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4011. LODI LAKE, LODI, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and streambank stabilization for Lodi Lake, Lodi, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4012. OAKLAND-INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation improvements for the Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4013. NOYO HARBOR DISTRICT, NOYO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4014. PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes for Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4015. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for Redwood City Navigation Channel, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4016. RIALTO CHANNEL AND CACTUS CHANNEL, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4017. SACRAMENTO REGIONAL SANITATION DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction in the Sacramento Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4018. SAN PABLO BAY, HERCULES, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements for San Pablo Bay, Hercules, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4019. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for navigation channel deepening for Stockton, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4020. TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, water supply, water quality, recreation, and other water-related issues including the impacts of water flows from Mexico for the Tijuana River basin, San Diego, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4021. TIJUANA RIVER WETLANDS RESTORATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and wetland restoration along the Tijuana River, San Diego County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4022. VENTURA RIVER, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Ventura River, Ventura County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4023. WILLOWBROOK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4024. FOUNTAIN SPRINGCREEK WATERSHED, PUEBLO, COLORADO.
The Secretary shall conduct a sediment impact analysis study to determine the sediment transport parameters for Fountain Spring watershed, Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4025. RALSTON CREEK, ARVADA, COLORADO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4026. HOLLY POND AND NOROTAN RIVER, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for environmental restoration for Holly Pond and Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4027. HOUSATONIC RIVER, NEW MILFORD, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along the Housatonic River, New Milford, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4028. LONG ISLAND SOUND AND MILL RIVER, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements for Long Island Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4029. MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Meriden, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4030. SOUTH COVE, OLD SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for the South Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4031. WEST RIVER, NEW HAVEN HARBOR, WEST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for shoreline protection, storm damage reduction, including a review of bulkhead condition for West River, New Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4032. CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for enhanced public access and recreational opportunities on Army Corps of Engineers projects in the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4033. WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, including green technologies, for Washington, District of Columbia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4034. LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental protection, Lake County, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4035. MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Marion County, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4036. MIAMI, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Miami, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4037. OAKLAND PARK, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Oakland Park, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4038. RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and shoreline protection for Riviera Beach, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4039. SOUTH DAYTONA, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes for South Daytona, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4040. TAMPA, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Tampa, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4041. PEAVINE CREEK, DECATUR, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, recreation, and related water resource purposes for Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4042. RICHLAND CREEK, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4043. STUDY FOR WATER SUPPLY, GEORGIA.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct a study of municipal and industrial water supply for the State of Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Study Components- In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) currently available water supplies; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) expected future demand for potable water; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) current water uses, including per capita use rates; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) opportunities to augment existing supplies, including through increased conservation and improved efficiencies; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) the effect of water supply policies and uses on the environment; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) the effect of water supply policies on the economy; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(7) the effect of water supply policies and uses on upstream and downstream uses; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(8) the impacts of water supply policies on threatened and endangered species; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(9) the impacts of consumptive uses on instream uses. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Timing- The Secretary shall complete the study not later than 2 years following the first obligation of funds for the study. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4044. SUWANNEE CREEK, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4045. AGAT AND MERIZO, GUAM.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection for Agat and Merizo, Guam. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4046. WAIAKEA STREAM AND PALAI STREAM, HILO, HAWAII.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Prior Work- In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the formulation of a project for flood damage reduction, Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii, initiated under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (
SEC. 4047. WAIALUA-KAIAKA WATERSHED, OAHU, HAWAII.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, water supply, and related water resource purposes for the Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4048. ALBANY PARK, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4049. CARPENTER CREEK, CARPENTERSVILLE, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4050. DES PLAINES RIVER, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for the Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4051. FERSON-OTTER CREEK DAM, ST. CHARLES, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4052. MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of developing a program for environmental restoration for the Middle Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4053. NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and related water resource purposes for the North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4054. RIVER PARK AND RONAN PARK, NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and shoreline protection for River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4055. THILLENS PARK, NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and shoreline protection for Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4056. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Village of Skokie, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4057. BOWMAN CREEK, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Bowman Creek, South Bend, Indiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4058. LAKE MICHIGAN WATERSHED, INDIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, and related water resource purposes for the Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4059. BURLINGTON, IOWA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Burlington, Iowa. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4060. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of utilizing the Federal hopper dredge Wheeler, as part of routine testing and use under its ready reserve status pursuant to section 3 of the Act of August 11, 1888 (
(1) Projects in connection with the comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, pursuant to section 7002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1270). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) Projects in connection with the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, authorized by section 1001 of this Act. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4061. JESUIT BEND, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Use of Local Report- In carrying out the study, the Secretary may include elements of the report prepared by the non-Federal interest for Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, if the Secretary determines that such elements are feasible. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4062. LABRANCHE WETLANDS, ST. CHARLES AND ST. JOHN COUNTIES, LOUISIANA.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood control and improvement of the Lower Mississippi River, Bonnet Carre Spillway, authorized by section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), to add environmental restoration as a project purpose. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Review- In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall review operational and structural changes to the project to restore the LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties, Louisiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4063. RUTH CANAL FRESHWATER DIVERSION, VERMILION, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for the improvement of Bayou Teche and the Vermilion River, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 641), and the project for flood protection in the Teche-Vermilion basins, Louisiana, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420), to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and water supply, Ruth Canal, Vermilion, Louisiana. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4064. ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Anacostia River watershed, Prince George’s County, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4065. CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE STUDY, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA.
In carrying out the study for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, being carried out under the Committee Resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate, adopted May 23, 2001, the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of carrying out projects on federally owned property for shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and improvement of water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4066. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, BALTIMORE HARBOR, MARYLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredged material disposal at Cox Creek Dredged Material Disposal Site for Baltimore Harbor, Maryland. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4067. MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS, MARYLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project for enhanced public access and recreational opportunities on Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland, as authorized by section 1001 of this Act. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4068. CAPISIC BROOK, PORTLAND, MAINE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for environmental restoration, flood damage reduction, and stormwater management for Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4069. FISHING AND GOOSEBERRY ISLANDS, KITTERY, MAINE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection for Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4070. SOUTHERN MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL STUDY, MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for southern Maine and New Hampshire. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4071. ASSABET, CHARLES, AND SUDBURY WATERSHEDS, MIDDLESEX AND ESSEX COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes, Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and Essex Counties, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4072. HOOSIC RIVER WATERSHED, NORTH ADAMS, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes for Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4073. MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for the Mystic River watershed, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4074. QUEQUECHAN RIVER, FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, recreation, and related water resource purposes for the Quequechan River, Fall River, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4075. CLINTON RIVER, CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes for Clinton River, Clinton Township, Michigan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4076. HAMILTON DAM, FLINT, MICHIGAN.
In carrying out the review under the authority of section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) of the project for flood control, Flint River, Michigan, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311), the Secretary shall include a review of Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4077. UPPER PENINSULA FLOOD RECOVERY, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water resource purposes for Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4078. AMORY, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Amory, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4079. COASTAL MISSISSIPPI ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for environmental restoration and related water resource purposes for coastal Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4080. FULTON, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Fulton, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4081. GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements, Gulfport, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4082. LUCEDALE, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, water supply, recreation, and related water resource purposes for Lucedale, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4083. MAGBY CREEK AND VERNON BRANCH, LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Magby Creek and Vernon Branch in Lowndes County, Mississippi. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4084. BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood protection and other purposes in the Blue River basin, vicinity of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (80 Stat. 1409), to include additional flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreational measures, Kansas City, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4085. LITTLE BLUE RIVER, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for stream bank stabilization for Little Blue River, Jackson County, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4086. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, especially examining the floodwall pump station, for St. Louis, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4087. LAS VEGAS WASH, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4088. NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary, in collaboration with all relevant Federal and non-Federal entities, including State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, academia, and the general public, shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study of all watersheds in New Hampshire for water quality, habitat degradation, environmental restoration, water supply, and potential impacts of climate change for New Hampshire. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4089. PISCATAQUA RIVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate sediment and nutrient pollution in the Piscataqua River system to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and water quality for the Piscataqua River, New Hampshire. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4090. BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED, OCEAN AND MONMOUTH COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes for Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4091. BEVERLY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for shoreline protection, including consideration of a gabion wall, for Beverly, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4092. BOROUGH OF PINE BEACH, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for shoreline protection, including consideration of floating wave attenuators off shore, for Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4093. HADDON TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Haddon Township, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4094. RAHWAY RIVER WATERSHED, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes for Rahway River watershed, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4095. THIRD RIVER, BELLEVILLE, BLOOMFIELD, AND NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction for Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4096. PASSAIC RIVER CHANNEL, NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, environmental restoration, and recreation for the Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4097. TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection for the Township of Ocean, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4098. PREAKNESS BROOK, WAYNE, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4099. DONA ANA, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of adding hydropower to existing irrigation canals for Dona Ana, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4100. HIDALGO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Hidalgo County, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4101. OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Otero County, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4102. VALENCIA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Valencia County, New Mexico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4103. GLEN COVE, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and environmental restoration for Glen Cove, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4104. HAWTREE BASIN, HAMILTON BEACH, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm damage reduction, shoreline protection, and environmental restoration for Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4105. KILL VAN KULL, PORT RICHMOND, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm damage reduction, shoreline protection, and environmental restoration for Kill Van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4106. MARINERS MARSH AND ARLINGTON MARSH, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Mariners Marsh and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4107. NEW YORK, NEW YORK.
(a) Inventory and Assessment of Bulkheads and Seawalls- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) INVENTORY- The Secretary shall conduct an inventory of bulkheads and seawalls constructed around the city of New York, New York, including the boroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) ASSESSMENT OF REHABILITATION NEEDS- In conducting the inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall assess the condition of the bulkheads and seawalls and the need for rehabilitation or modification of the bulkheads and seawalls. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Report to Congress- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing the inventory and assessment required by subsection (a). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Interim Actions- If the Secretary determines that a bulkhead or seawall referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate that risk. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(d) Federal Share- The Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under this section shall be 65 percent. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(e) Coordination- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall coordinate with the appropriate officials of the city of New York and the State of New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(f) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000, to remain available until expended. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4108. NORTON BASIN INLET, FAR ROCKAWAY, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection for Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4109. QUEENS, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, Queens, New York, between 116th and 156th Streets. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4110. ROCKAWAY BEACH SEAWALL, ROCKAWAY, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection for Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4111. ROOSEVELT ISLAND, EAST RIVER, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and shoreline protection for Roosevelt Island, East River, New York, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4112. CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for environmental restoration in support of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Initiative for Charlotte, North Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4113. NANTAHALA RIVER, SWAIN, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, recreation, and related water resource purposes, Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4114. MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, SOUTH AND CENTRAL NORTH DAKOTA, NORTH DAKOTA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Missouri River and tributaries, South and Central North Dakota, North Dakota. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4115. BIG CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Big Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4116. BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Brandywine Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4117. CARLISLE TOWNSHIP, LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4118. CUYAHOGA RIVER WATERSHED AND TUSCARAWAS RIVER WATERSHED, SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes, Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed, Summit County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4119. EUCLID CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4120. HEALY CREEK, BRUNSWICK, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, streambank erosion, and sedimentation control for Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4121. LOWER MAUMEE RIVER, TOLEDO, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4122. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.
Section 4070 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1183) is amended by striking ‘Ohio River’ and inserting ‘Ohio River and tributaries’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4123. SHAKER LAKES, SHAKER HEIGHTS AND CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4124. STARK COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Stark County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4125. TINKERS CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4126. UPPER TUSCARAWAS RIVER, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4127. WEST CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for West Creek watershed, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4128. YELLOW CREEK AND SHORT CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4129. FERRY CREEK RESERVOIR, BROOKINGS, OREGON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4130. OREGON NAVIGATION JETTIES AND BREAKWATERS, OREGON.
(a) Inventory and Assessment of Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) INVENTORY- The Secretary shall conduct an inventory of federally constructed navigation jetties and breakwaters in the State of Oregon. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) ASSESSMENT OF REHABILITATION NEEDS- In conducting the inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall assess the condition of the navigation jetties and breakwaters and the need for rehabilitation or modification of the jetties and breakwaters. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Report to Congress- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing the inventory and assessment required by subsection (a). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Interim Actions- If the Secretary determines that a jetty or breakwater referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate that risk. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(d) Federal Share- The Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under this section shall be 65 percent. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(e) Coordination- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall coordinate with the appropriate officials of the State of Oregon. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(f) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000, to remain available until expended. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4131. PORT ORFORD, OREGON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements with examination of navigational breakwaters for Port Orford, Oregon. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4132. BUHL LAKE, SHARON, PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a multipurpose project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Prior Work- In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the formulation of a project for environmental restoration, Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania, initiated under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (
SEC. 4133. DELAWARE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for the Delaware River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4134. ELK CREEK, MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and water quality for Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4135. MILL CREEK, ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, focusing on the Mill Creek Drift Catcher, for Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4136. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4137. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
Section 4077 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1184) is amended-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania’ and inserting ‘Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the Monongahela River basin, Pennsylvania,’; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘Shaler Township’ and inserting ‘Shaler Township, Hampton Township, Harmar Township,’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4138. GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction for Guayama, Puerto Rico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4139. RINCON, PUERTO RICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and shoreline protection for the Municipality of Rincon, Puerto Rico. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4140. PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water resource purposes for the rivers in Providence, Rhode Island. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4141. SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary, in collaboration with all relevant Federal and non-Federal entities, including State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, academia, and the general public, shall conduct comprehensive watershed studies of all 8 watersheds in South Carolina for water quality, habitat condition, environmental restoration, water supply, and the potential impacts of climate change for South Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4142. JAMES RIVER, SOUTH DAKOTA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for channel restoration and improvements on the James River, South Dakota, authorized by section 401(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) to add ecosystem restoration and watershed improvements as project purposes. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4143. STATION CAMP CREEK, GALLATIN, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4144. BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study assessing the long-term impacts of water use, withdrawal, recirculation, and downstream impacts on the Whitney Lake Reservoir, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4145. HICKORY CREEK, CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4146. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS (BARBOURS CUT), TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of modifying the Barbours Cut element of the project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), to a depth of 45 feet. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4147. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying out a project for dredged material disposal in the vicinity of the project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4148. SIMSBORO AQUIFER, CITY OF BALSTROP, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of utilizing the Simsboro Aquifer for water supply for the City of Balstrop, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4149. NAVASOTA RIVER WATERSHED, GRIMES COUNTY, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource purposes for the Navasota River watershed, Grimes County, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4150. RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and water supply for the Rio Grande basin, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4151. ROMA, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Roma, Texas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4152. COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UTAH.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for streambank stabilization for Cottonwood Heights, Utah. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4153. EMERY TOWN, UTAH.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of existing water supply resources for Emery Town, Utah. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4154. BIG SANDY RIVER REALLOCATION STUDY, VIRGINIA AND WEST VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of reallocating water storage at 6 reservoirs to optimize benefits for multiple-purpose use in the Big Sandy River watershed, Virginia and West Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4155. BUCKROE AND GRANDVIEW BEACHES, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for shoreline protection for Buckroe and Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4156. FORT MONROE, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, including offshore breakwaters, for Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4157. HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for hurricane and storm damage reduction and shoreline protection for Hampton, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4158. JAMES RIVER WATERSHED, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the water resource needs, including current and projected future needs, for the James River watershed, Virginia. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4159. ELLIOTT BAY, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation channel deepening for Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4160. GREEN RIVER, KENT, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Green River, Kent, Washington. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4161. VANCOUVER LAKE WATERSHED, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for environmental quality and environmental restoration, especially related to salmon and steelhead recovery issues, for the Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4162. LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE, CITY OF CUDAHY, WISCONSIN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for shoreline protection for the Lake Michigan shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5001. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General- Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202) is amended-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘pilot’; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in subsection (d(2))(2) by adding at the end the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(C) IN-KIND SERVICES- In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (
), the non-Federal interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project carried out under this section in the form of in-kind services and materials. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink 42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b ‘(D) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FUNDS- In accordance with section 2007 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (
), funds provided by a Federal department or agency other than the Corps of Engineers for a project carried out under this section shall be credited towards the non-Federal share of the cost of project.’; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink 33 U.S.C. 2222
(3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) as subsections (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) by inserting after subsection (d) the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(e) Cost Limitation- Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any single locality.’; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) by striking subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) and inserting the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(g) Projects- The Secretary may carry out projects under this section in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with the goal of carrying out projects in each of the States of Delaware, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the District of Columbia.’; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) in subsection (j) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) by striking ‘$40,000,000’ and inserting ‘$50,000,000’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Restoration of Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop at Federal expense and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to prioritize projects within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including projects in the Anacostia, Elizabeth, James, Patapsco, Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, Susquehanna, and York River basins. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) REQUIREMENTS- The Secretary shall ensure that the plan developed under paragraph (1)-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) focuses on integrating existing and potential future work of the Corps of Engineers; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) is developed in consultation with the Chesapeake Bay Program maintained under section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (
(C) encompasses all actions of the Corps of Engineers that are necessary to assist in the implementation of the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, as defined in section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (
(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5002. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY.
Section 5015(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1196) is amended by striking ‘$134,650,000’ and inserting ‘$185,638,028’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5003. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.
Section 5002(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1190) is amended-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in paragraph (9) by striking ‘Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks’ and inserting ‘Esopus, Rondout, and Wallkill watersheds’; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) by adding at the end the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(19) San Gabriel River watershed, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(20) South Platte River watershed, Colorado. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(21) Loxahatchee River watershed, Jupiter, Florida. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(22) Hudson River watershed, Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster Counties, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(23) Muskingum River basin, Ohio.’. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5004. COMPREHENSIVE SHORELINE RESTORATION.
(a) In General- The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and emergency streambank protection components of projects at the locations described in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that such component is feasible. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Project Locations- The locations referred to in subsection (a) are as follows: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) Miller Knox Shoreline, Richmond, California. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) Mississippi River, Davenport, Iowa. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) Lake Michigan (in the vicinity of the former USX Site), Chicago, Illinois. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) Pond and Mill Creek watershed, Louisville, Kentucky. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) Massachusetts Bay (in the vicinity of Georges Island), Boston, Massachusetts. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) Mississippi River (in the vicinity of the lower St. Anthony Falls), Minneapolis, Minnesota. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(7) Brush Creek, Kansas City, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(8) Mississippi River, Kimmswick, Missouri. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(9) Delaware River, Trenton, New Jersey. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(10) East River, New York, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(11) Upper New York Bay, Staten Island, New York. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(12) Abbott’s Creek, Lexington, North Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(13) Ohio River, Belpre, Ohio. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(14) Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(15) Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(16) Ohio River, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(17) Fields Point, Narragansett Bay, Providence, Rhode Island. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(18) Congaree River, Columbia, South Carolina. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(19) Wolf Creek Harbor, Mississippi River, Tennessee. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(20) Ruston Way Seawall, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(21) Lower Yahara River, McFarland, Wisconsin. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Cost Limitation- Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any single locality. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(d) Recreation- The Secretary may include recreational components as part of a project carried out under this section. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(e) Funding- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal years 2011 through 2016. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5005. NORTHEAST COASTAL REGION ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration within the coastal waters of the Northeastern United States from Virginia to Maine, including associated bays, estuaries, and critical riverine areas. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) General Coastal Management Plan- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) ASSESSMENT- The Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, the Governors of the coastal States from Virginia to Maine, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties, shall assess the needs regarding, and opportunities for, aquatic ecosystem restoration within the coastal waters of the Northeastern United States. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) PLAN- The Secretary shall develop a general coastal management plan based on the assessment carried out under paragraph (1), maximizing the use of existing plans and investigations. The Secretary shall include in the plan the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) An inventory and evaluation of coastal habitats. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) Identification of aquatic resources in need of improvement. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) Identification and prioritization of potential aquatic habitat restoration projects. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(D) Identification of geographical and ecological areas of concern, including-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(i) finfish habitats; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(ii) diadromous fisheries migratory corridors; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(iii) shellfish habitats; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(iv) submerged aquatic vegetation; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(v) wetlands; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(vi) beach dune complexes and other similar habitats. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Eligible Projects- The Secretary may carry out an aquatic ecosystem restoration project under this section if the project-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) is consistent with the management plan developed under subsection (b); and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) provides for-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) the restoration of degraded aquatic habitat (including coastal, saltmarsh, benthic, and riverine habitat); CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) the restoration of geographical or ecological areas of concern, including the restoration of natural river and stream characteristics; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) the improvement of water quality; or CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(D) other projects or activities determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(d) Cost Sharing- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) MANAGEMENT PLAN- The management plan developed under subsection (b) shall be completed at Federal expense. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) RESTORATION PROJECTS- The non-Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section shall be 35 percent. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(e) Cost Limitation- Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds may be allocated under this section for an eligible project. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(f) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal year thereafter, including funds for the completion of the management plan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5006. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.
(a) In General- The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, emergency streambank protection, and aquatic plant control components of the Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan, developed pursuant to section 5060 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1215), if the Secretary determines that such component is feasible. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Consultation- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Federal Lands- In carrying out a project component under subsection (a), the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project component that benefits federally owned property. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5007. EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to carry out those portions of the project for shoreline stabilization, Egmont Key, Florida, carried out under section 3 of the Act entitled ‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’, approved August 13, 1946 (
SEC. 5008. CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out projects for environmental protection and restoration at the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, Cambridge, Maryland. In carrying out such projects, the Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5009. HART-MILLER ISLAND, MARYLAND.
After the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may not consider the use or expansion of Hart-Miller Island, Maryland, in any dredged material management plan. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5010. GALLOPS ISLAND, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for the environmental remediation of Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts. In carrying out such project, the Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of the National Park Service. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5011. SHARKEY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
Funding for the operation and maintenance of the multiagency wildlife and environmental interpretative and education center, authorized by section 145(f) of Division H of
SEC. 5012. CHARLESTON HARBOR POST 45 PROJECT, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reconnaissance and feasibility studies for the Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South Carolina, and if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, shall proceed directly to project preconstruction, engineering, and design. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 5013. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROMOTION OF GENERAL MICHAEL J. WALSH TO MAJOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh has had a distinguished 30-year career with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, including as-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) District Commander of the San Francisco District, San Francisco, California, from 1994 to 1996; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) District Commander of the Sacramento District, Sacramento, California, from 1998 to 2001; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) Executive Director of Civil Works, Corps Headquarters, Washington, District of Columbia, from 2001 to 2003; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(D) Chief of Staff, Corps Headquarters, Washington, District of Columbia, from 2003 to 2004; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(E) Commander of the South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, Georgia, from 2004 to 2006; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(F) Commander for the Corps Gulf Region Division, Baghdad, Iraq, from 2006 to 2008; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(G) Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, Mississippi, from 2008 to 2010. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) General Walsh has held a wide variety of Army command and staff assignments, including-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) project management officer for Engineer Branch, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE); CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) Environmental Task Force Leader, Fort Stewart, Georgia; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) Executive Officer, 92nd Engineer Battalion, Fort Stewart, Georgia, and Saudi Arabia; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(D) Project Engineer and Assistant Area Engineer, Baltimore District; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(E) Construction Officer, 18th Engineer Brigade, Darmstadt, Germany; and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(F) Commander, Company B, 94th Engineer Battalion, Darmstadt, Germany. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) General Walsh has received several awards of the United States Army, including 2 Bronze Stars, 4 Legions of Merit, and numerous lesser awards. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(4) On October 27, 200910, the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate unanimously approved the nomination of General Walsh to the rank of Major General, United States Army. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(5) General Walsh’s nomination was unreasonably delayed on the floor of the Senate for 7 months. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(6) On May 19, 2010, the nomination of General Walsh to Major General of the United States Army was confirmed by the United States Senate by unanimous consent. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(7) On June 2, 2010, Brigadier General Walsh was formally promoted to the rank of Major General. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the Sense of Congress that General Walsh should be congratulated for his promotion to the rank of Major General, United States Army, and should be commended for his duty and dedication to the United States, to the United States Army, and to the Corps of Engineers. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Union Calendar No. 391CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
111th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
2d SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
H. R. 5892CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
[Report No. 111-654]CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
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
September 29, 2010CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
September 29, 2010CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printedCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
