|
S. 3021-39
<br />SEC. 1202. ADDITIONAL STUDIES.
<br />(a) LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER; MISSOURI, KENTUCKY, TEN-
<br />NESSEE, ARKANSAS, MISSISSIPPI, AND LOUISIANA.—
<br />(1) IN GENERAL. —The Secretary is authorized to carry out
<br />studies to determine the feasibility of habitat restoration for
<br />each of the eight reaches identified as priorities in the report
<br />prepared by the Secretary pursuant to section 402 of the Water
<br />Resources Development Act of 2000, titled "Lower Mississippi
<br />River Resource Assessment; Final Assessment In Response to
<br />Section 402 of WRDA 2000" and dated July 2015.
<br />(2) CONSULTATION. —The Secretary shall consult with the
<br />Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee during each
<br />feasibility study carried out under paragraph (1).
<br />(b) ST. LOUIS RIVERFRONT, MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, MISSOURI
<br />AND ILLINOIS.—
<br />(1) IN GENERAL. —The Secretary is authorized to carry out
<br />studies to determine the feasibility of a project for ecosystem
<br />restoration and flood risk management in Madison, St. Clair,
<br />and Monroe Counties, Illinois, St. Louis City, and St. Louis,
<br />Jefferson, Franklin, Gasconade, Maries, Phelps, Crawford,
<br />Dent, Washington, Iron, St. Francois, St. Genevieve, Osage,
<br />Reynolds, and Texas Counties, Missouri.
<br />(2) CONTINUATION OF EXISTING STUDY. —Any study carried
<br />out under paragraph (1) shall be considered a continuation
<br />of the study being carried out under Committee Resolution
<br />2642 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
<br />of the House of Representatives, adopted June 21, 2000.
<br />SEC. 1203. EXPEDITED COMPLETION.
<br />(a) FEASIBILITY REPORTS. —The Secretary shall expedite the
<br />completion of a feasibility study for each of the following projects,
<br />and if the Secretary determines that the project is justified in
<br />a completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction plan-
<br />ning, engineering, and design of the project:
<br />(1) Project for riverbank stabilization, Selma, Alabama.
<br />(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, Three Mile Creek,
<br />Alabama.
<br />(3) Project for navigation, Nome, Alaska.
<br />(4) Project for flood diversion, Seward, Alaska.
<br />(5) Project for flood control, water conservation, and related
<br />purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, California.
<br />(6) Project for flood risk management, Lower Cache Creek,
<br />California.
<br />(7) Project for flood risk management, Lower San Joaquin
<br />River, California, as described in section 1322(b)(2)(F) of the
<br />Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1707)
<br />(second phase of feasibility study).
<br />(8) Project for flood risk management, South San Francisco,
<br />California.
<br />(9) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem res-
<br />toration, Tijuana River, California.
<br />(10) Project for flood damage reduction, Westminster -East
<br />(.o rr1 nn (Trnvo (boli Fnrnio
<br />
|