Let me make it clear. The wording I latched onto is the wording that is in the act right now. And from the context in the act, “reconstruction” means putting it back the way it was, not modifying it.
In reality, of course, if we were going to make significant investment in a structure, we would probably be, at a minimum, modifying it to modern standards, and possibly replacing it, in which case it would be caught under the act.
We get into the problem of semantics when we ask when repairs stop and reconstruction begins, which is always the case. Where does maintenance stop and repair begin? Those are the kinds of things we are always caught in. Certainly I agree with you, in principle, that if we are going to make a major change or invest significant dollars in a structure, that's the time to look at any changes that we might make to better accommodate navigation, fish passage, and all of those kinds of things.