Pub. L. 118-272, div. A, tit. II, sec. 1201 (as amended)
AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
SEC. 1201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
(a) New Projects.—The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes, as identified in the reports titled “Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development” submitted to Congress pursuant to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress:
(1) Yavapai county, arizona.—Project for flood risk management, Yavapai County, in the vicinity of the City of Cottonwood, Arizona.
(2) Clear lake, california.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Clear Lake, Lake County, California.
(3) Cosumnes river watershed, california.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, and related purposes, Cosumnes River watershed, California.
(4) Eastman lake, california.—Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply conservation and recharge, Eastman Lake, California.
(5) Hesperia, california.—Project for flood risk management, city of Hesperia, California.
(6) Pillar point harbor, california.—Project for flood risk management and storm damage risk reduction, Pillar Point Harbor, California.
(7) Pine flat dam, california.—Project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and recreation, Pine Flat Dam, Fresno County, California.
(8) Rialto channel, california.—Project for flood risk management, Rialto Channel, city of Rialto and vicinity, California.
(9) Salinas river, california.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Salinas River, California.
(10) San bernardino, california.—Project for flood risk management, city of San Bernardino, California.
(11) San diego and orange counties, california.—Project for flood and coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration, San Diego and Orange Counties, California.
(12) San diego bay, california.—Project for flood risk management, including sea level rise, San Diego Bay, California.
(13) San felipe lake and pajaro river, san benito county, california.—Project for flood risk management, San Felipe Lake and Pajaro River, San Benito County, California.
(14) San mateo, california.—Project for flood risk management, including stormwater runoff reduction, City of San Mateo, California.
(15) Santa ana river, anaheim, california.—Project for flood risk management, water supply, and recreation, Santa Ana River, Anaheim, California.
(16) Santa ana river, jurupa valley, california.—Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Santa Ana River, Jurupa Valley, California.
(17) Sweetwater reservoir, california.—Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, Sweetwater Reservoir, California.
(18) Colorado springs, colorado.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Fountain Creek, Monument Creek, and Templeton Gap Levee, Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado.
(19) Connecticut shoreline, connecticut.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Connecticut shoreline, Connecticut.
(20) Enfield, connecticut.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including restoring freshwater brook floodplain, Enfield, Connecticut.
(21) Hartford, connecticut.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Hartford, Connecticut.
(22) Park river conduit, city of hartford, connecticut.—Project for flood risk management, including stormwater management, City of Hartford, Connecticut and vicinity.
(23) Newington, connecticut.—Project for flood risk management, Newington, Connecticut.
(24) City of norwalk, connecticut.—Project for flood risk management, City of Norwalk, Connecticut, in the vicinity of the Norwalk wastewater treatment plant.
(25) Plymouth, connecticut.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Plymouth, Connecticut.
(26) Fairfield, connecticut.—Project for flood risk management, Rooster River, Fairfield, Connecticut.
(27) Westport beaches, connecticut.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration, Westport, Connecticut.
(28) Windham, connecticut.—Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Windham, Connecticut.
(29) Delaware inland bays watershed, delaware.—Project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline stabilization, Delaware Inland Bays watershed, Delaware.
(30) Town of milton, delaware.—Project for flood risk management, Town of Milton, Delaware.
(31) Wilmington, delaware.—Project for coastal storm risk management, flood risk management, and hurricane and storm risk reduction, City of Wilmington, Delaware.
(32) Anacostia river bank and seawalls, district of columbia and maryland.—Project for navigation, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, including dredging and sediment management, Anacostia River bank and seawalls, Washington, District of Columbia, and Prince George’s County, Maryland.
(33) Fletchers cove, district of columbia.—Project for recreation, including dredging, Fletchers Cove, District of Columbia.
(34) East lake tohopekaliga, florida.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, East Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida.
(35) Florida spaceport system marine intermodal transportation wharf, florida.—Project for navigation in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
(36) Lake conway, florida.—Project for flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, Lake Conway, Florida.
(37) Macdill air force base, tampa, florida.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of MacDill Air Force Base, City of Tampa, Florida.
(38) Palatka barge port, putnam county, florida.—Project for navigation, Palatka Barge Port, Putnam County, Florida.
(39) Camp creek tributary, georgia.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including stream restoration, along the Camp Creek Tributary in Fulton County, Georgia.
(40) College park, georgia.—Project for flood risk management, City of College Park, Georgia.
(41) Proctor creek, smyrna, georgia.—Project for flood risk management, Proctor Creek, Smyrna, Georgia, including Jonquil Driver Stormwater Park.
(42) Tybee island, georgia.—Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Tybee Island, Georgia, including by incorporating other Federal studies conducted on the effect of the construction of Savannah Harbor Channel on the shoreline of Tybee Island.
(43) Guam.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Guam.
(44) Hawai‘i kai, hawaii.—Project for flood risk management, Hawai‘i Kai, Hawaii.
(45) Kaiaka-waialua watershed, hawaii.—Project for flood risk management, Kaiaka-Waialua watershed, O‘ahu, Hawaii.
(46) Kaua‘i, hawaii.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii.
(47) Maui, hawaii.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, County of Maui, Hawaii.
(48) Berwyn, illinois.—Project for comprehensive flood risk management, City of Berwyn, Illinois.
(49) Butterfield creek, illinois.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Butterfield Creek, Illinois, including the villages of Flossmoor, Matteson, Park Forest, and Richton Park.
(50) Franklin park, illinois.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and water supply, Village of Franklin Park, Illinois.
(51) Rocky ripple, indiana.—Project for flood risk management, Town of Rocky Ripple, Indiana.
(52) Bayou rigaud to caminada pass, louisiana.—Project for navigation, Bayou Rigaud to Caminada Pass, Louisiana.
(53) Lake pontchartrain storm surge reduction project, louisiana.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Lake Pontchartrain, Orleans, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Livingston, St. James, St. John, St. Charles, Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana.
(54) Livingston parish flood protection, louisiana.—Project for flood risk management, Livingston Parish, Louisiana.
(55) Natchitoches, louisiana.—Project for flood risk management, City of Natchitoches, Louisiana.
(56) New orleans metro area, louisiana.—Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, including mitigation of saltwater wedges, for the City of New Orleans and metropolitan area, Louisiana.
(57) Coffeyville, kansas.—Project for flood risk management, Coffeyville, Kansas.
(58) Bullskin creek in shelby county, kentucky.—Project for ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, Bullskin Creek in Shelby County, Kentucky.
(59) Cumberland river, crittenden county, livingston county, and lyon county, kentucky.—Project for ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, Cumberland River, Crittenden County, Livingston County, and Lyon County, Kentucky.
(60) Fulton county, kentucky.—Project for flood risk management, including bank stabilization, Fulton County, Kentucky.
(61) Scott county, kentucky.—Project for ecosystem restoration, including water supply, Scott County, Kentucky.
(62) Hagaman chute, lake providence, louisiana.—Project for navigation, including widening and sediment management, Hagaman Chute, Lake Providence, Louisiana.
(63) Baltimore inland flooding, maryland.—Project for inland flood risk management, City of Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland.
(64) Maryland beaches, maryland.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management in the vicinity of United States Route 1, Maryland.
(65) Ocean city, maryland.—Project for flood risk management, Ocean City, Maryland.
(66) Beaverdam creek, prince george’s county, maryland.—Project for flood risk management, Beaverdam Creek, Prince George’s County, Maryland, in the vicinity of United States Route 50 and railroads.
(67) Cape cod canal, massachusetts.—Project for recreation, Cape Cod Canal, in the vicinity of Tidal Flats Recreation Area, Massachusetts.
(68) Connecticut river, massachusetts.—Project for flood risk management along the Connecticut River, Massachusetts.
(69) Leominster, massachusetts.—Project for flood risk management, City of Leominster, Massachusetts.
(70) Lower cobb brook, massachusetts.—Project for flood risk management, Lower Cobb Brook, City of Taunton, Massachusetts.
(71) Oak bluffs, massachusetts.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline stabilization along East Chop Drive, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
(72) Oak bluffs harbor, massachusetts.—Project for coastal storm risk management and navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor north and south jetties, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
(73) Squantum causeway, massachusetts.—Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Squantum, in the vicinity of East Squantum Street and Dorchester Street Causeway, Quincy, Massachusetts.
(74) Sunset bay, charles river, massachusetts.—Project for navigation, flood risk management, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, including dredging, in the vicinity of Sunset Bay, Charles River, cities of Boston, Watertown, and Newton, Massachusetts.
(75) Tisbury, massachusetts.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline stabilization along Beach Road Causeway, Tisbury, Massachusetts.
(76) Town neck beach, sandwich, massachusetts.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, Town Neck Beach, town of Sandwich, Massachusetts.
(77) Westport harbor, massachusetts.—Project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and navigation, including improvements to the breakwater at Westport Harbor, Town of Westport, Massachusetts.
(78) Ann arbor, michigan.—Project for water supply, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
(79) Brighton mill pond, michigan.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Brighton Mill Pond, Michigan.
(80) Cheboygan, michigan.—Project for flood risk management, Little Black River, City of Cheboygan, Michigan.
(81) Dearborn and dearborn heights, michigan.—Project for flood risk management, Dearborn and Dearborn Heights, Michigan.
(82) Grand traverse bay, michigan.—Project for navigation, Grand Traverse Bay, Michigan.
(83) Grand traverse county, michigan.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Grand Traverse County, Michigan.
(84) Kalamazoo river watershed, michigan.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River Watershed and tributaries, Michigan.
(85) Ludington, michigan.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including feasibility of emergency shoreline protection, Ludington, Michigan.
(86) Marysville, michigan.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline stabilization, City of Marysville, Michigan.
(87) Mccomb, mississippi.—Project for flood risk management, city of McComb, Mississippi.
(88) Miles city, montana.—Project for flood risk management, Miles City, Montana.
(89) Pahrump, nevada.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management, Pahrump, Nevada.
(90) Berkeley heights, new providence, and summit, new jersey.—Project for flood risk management, Township of Berkeley Heights, Borough of New Providence, and City of Summit, New Jersey.
(91) Berry’s creek, new jersey.—Project for flood risk management, Berry’s Creek, New Jersey.
(92) Fleischer brook, new jersey.—Project for flood risk management, Fleischer Brook, New Jersey.
(93) Great falls raceway, paterson, new jersey.—Project for flood risk management and hydropower, Paterson, New Jersey.
(94) Guttenberg, new jersey.—Project for flood risk management, Guttenberg, New Jersey, in the vicinity of John F. Kennedy Boulevard East.
(95) Passaic river basin, new jersey.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey.
(96) Passaic river, paterson, new jersey.—Project for navigation and flood risk management, Passaic River, Paterson, New Jersey.
(97) Paulsboro, new jersey.—Project for navigation, Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey.
(98) Village of ridgewood, new jersey.—Project for flood risk management along the Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River, Village of Ridgewood, New Jersey.
(99) Wolf creek, new jersey.—Project for flood risk management, Wolf Creek, Ridgefield, New Jersey.
(100) Dona county, new mexico.—Project for water supply, Dona County, New Mexico.
(101) Nambe river watershed, new mexico.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, Nambe River Watershed, New Mexico.
(102) Otero county, new mexico.—Project for flood risk management, Otero County, New Mexico.
(103) Allegheny river, new york.—Project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, New York.
(104) Babylon, new york.—Project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Town of Babylon, New York.
(105) Bronx river, new york.—Project for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Bronxville, Tuckahoe, and Yonkers, New York.
(106) Brookhaven, new york.—Project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration, Town of Brookhaven, New York.
(107) Highlands, new york.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Highland Brook (also known as “Buttermilk Falls Brook”) and tributaries, Town of Highlands, Orange County, New York.
(108) Inwood hill park, new york.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Inwood Hill Park, Spuyten Duyvil Creek, Manhattan, New York.
(109) Islip, new york.—Project for flood risk management, Town of Islip, New York.
(110) Oyster bay, new york.—Project for coastal storm risk management and flood risk management in the vicinity of Tobay Beach, Town of Oyster Bay, New York.
(111) Pascack brook, rockland county, new york.—Project for flood risk management, Pascack Brook, Rockland County, New York, including the Village of Spring Valley.
(112) Somers, new york.—Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, Town of Somers, New York.
(113) Sparkill creek, orangetown, new york.—Project for flood risk management and streambank erosion, Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York.
(114) Turtle cove, new york.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Pelham Bay Park, Eastchester Bay, in the vicinity of Turtle Cove, Bronx, New York.
(115) Cape fear river and tributaries, north carolina.—Project for flood risk management, in the vicinity of Northeast Cape Fear River and Black River, North Carolina.
(116) Leland, north carolina.—Project for flood risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, including bank stabilization, for Jackeys Creek in the Town of Leland, North Carolina.
(117) Marion, north carolina.—Project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, along the Catawba River, City of Marion, North Carolina.
(118) Pender county, north carolina.—Project for flood risk management in the vicinity of North Carolina Highway 53, Pender County, North Carolina.
(119) Pigeon river, north carolina.—Project for flood risk management, Pigeon River, in the vicinity of the towns of Clyde and Canton, Haywood County, North Carolina.
(120) Coe creek, ohio.—Project for flood risk management, Coe Creek, City of Fairview Park, Ohio.
(121) Cold creek, ohio.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Cold Creek, Erie County, Ohio.
(122) Defiance, ohio.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and bank stabilization, Maumee, Auglaize, and Tiffin Rivers, Defiance, Ohio.
(123) Dillon lake, muskingum county, ohio.—Project for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and shoreline erosion protection, Dillon Lake, Muskingum and Licking Counties, Ohio.
(124) Geneva-on-the-lake, ohio.—Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and shoreline erosion protection, Geneva-on-the-Lake, Ohio.
(125) Great miami river, ohio.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, including incorporation of existing levee systems, for the Great Miami River, Ohio.
(126) Jerusalem township, ohio.—Project for flood and coastal storm risk management and shoreline erosion protection, Jerusalem Township, Ohio.
(127) Little killbuck creek, ohio.—Project for ecosystem restoration, including aquatic invasive species management, Little Killbuck Creek, Ohio.
(128) Niles, ohio.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, City of Niles, Ohio.
(129) Nine mile creek, cleveland, ohio.—Project for flood risk management, Nine Mile Creek, Cleveland, Ohio.
(130) Lake texoma, oklahoma and texas.—Project for water supply, including increased needs in southern Oklahoma, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma and Texas.
(131) Sardis lake, oklahoma.—Project for water supply, Sardis Lake, Oklahoma.
(132) Siuslaw river, florence, oregon.—Project for flood risk management and streambank erosion, Siuslaw River, Florence, Oregon.
(133) Willamette river, lane county, oregon.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Willamette River, Lane County, Oregon.
(134) Allegheny river, pennsylvania.—Project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, Pennsylvania.
(135) Borough of norristown, pennsylvania.—Project for flood risk management, including dredging along the Schuylkill River, in the Borough of Norristown and vicinity, Pennsylvania.
(136) Borough of pottstown, pennsylvania.—Project for alternate water supply, Borough of Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
(137) Philadelphia, pennsylvania.—Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, including shoreline stabilization, South Wetlands Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(138) West norriton township, pennsylvania.—Project for flood risk management and streambank erosion, Stony Creek, in the vicinity of Whitehall Road, West Norriton Township, Pennsylvania.
(139) Guayama, puerto rico.—Project for flood risk management, Ruamanuayama, Puerto Rico.
(140) Naranjito, puerto rico.—Project for flood risk management, Ruadiana, Naranjito, Puerto Rico.
(141) Orocovis, puerto rico.—Project for flood risk management, Rrocovis, Orocovis, Puerto Rico.
(142) Ponce, puerto rico.—Project for flood risk management, RnabPonce, Puerto Rico.
(143) Santa isabel, puerto rico.—Project for flood risk management, Rescalabrado, Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico.
(144) Yauco, puerto rico.—Project for flood risk management, Rauco, Yauco, Puerto Rico.
(145) Union county, south carolina.—Project for flood risk management, water supply, and recreation, Union County, South Carolina.
(146) Davidson county, tennessee.—Project for flood risk management, City of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee.
(147) Greene county, tennessee.—Project for water supply, including evaluation of Nolichucky River capabilities, Greene County, Tennessee.
(148) Galveston bay, texas.—Project for navigation, Galveston Bay, Texas.
(149) Guadalupe county, texas.—Project for flood risk management, Guadalupe County, including City of Santa Clara, Texas.
(150) Harris county, texas.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Halls Bayou, Harris County, Texas.
(151) Winooski river basin, vermont.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Winooski River basin, Vermont.
(152) Cedarbush creek, gloucester county, virginia.—Project for navigation, Cedarbush Creek, Gloucester County, Virginia.
(153) Chickahominy river, james city county, virginia.—Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Chickahominy River, James City County, Virginia.
(154) James city county, virginia.—Project for flood risk management and navigation, James City County, Virginia.
(155) Timberneck creek, gloucester county, virginia.—Project for navigation, Timberneck Creek, Gloucester County, Virginia.
(156) York river, york county, virginia.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, York River, York County, Virginia.
(157) Grays bay, washington.—Project for navigation, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration, Grays Bay, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
(158) Wahkiakum county, washington.—Project for flood risk management and sediment management, Grays River, in the vicinity of Rosburg, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
(159) Wind, klickitat, hood, deschutes, rock creek, and john day tributaries, columbia river, washington.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Wind, Klickitat, Hood, Deschutes, Rock Creek, and John Day tributaries, Columbia River, Washington.
(160) Arcadia, wisconsin.—Project for flood risk management, city of Arcadia, Wisconsin.
(161) City of la crosse, wisconsin.—Project for flood risk management, City of La Crosse, Wisconsin.
(162) River falls, wisconsin.—Project for ecosystem restoration, city of River Falls, Wisconsin.
(b) Project Modifications.—The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the following project modifications:
(1) Black warrior and tombigbee rivers, alabama.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Coffeeville Lock and Dam, authorized pursuant to section 4 of the Act of July 5, 1884 (chapter 229, 23 Stat. 148; 35 Stat. 818), and portion of the project for navigation, Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama and Mississippi, consisting of the Demopolis Lock and Dam on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 17), for construction of new locks to maintain navigability.
(2) Luxapalila creek, alabama.—Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Luxapalila Creek, Alabama, authorized pursuant to section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 307).
(3) Osceola harbor, arkansas.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Osceola Harbor, Arkansas, authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), to evaluate the expansion of the harbor.
(4) Farmington dam, california.—Modifications to the project for flood control and other purposes, the Calaveras
River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, California, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 902), for improved flood risk management and to support water supply recharge and storage.
(5) Humboldt harbor and bay, california.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (chapter 847, 46 Stat. 932; 82 Stat. 732; 110 Stat. 3663), for additional deepening and widening.
(6) Madera county, california.—Modifications to the project for flood risk management, water supply, and ecosystem restoration, Chowchilla River, Ash Slough, and Berenda Slough, Madera County, California, authorized pursuant to section 6 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1595; 52 Stat. 1225).
(7) Sacramento river integrated floodplain management, california.—Modifications to the project for flood control, Sacramento River, California, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 76 Stat. 1197), to enhance flood risk reduction, to incorporate natural and nature-based features, and to incorporate modifications to the portion of such project north of the Freemont Weir for the purposes of integrating management of such system with the adjacent floodplain.
(8) San joaquin river basin, california.—Modifications to the project for flood control, Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin Streams, California, authorized pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives adopted on May 8, 1964 (docket number 1371), for improved flood risk management, including dredging.
(9) Thames river, connecticut.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Thames River, Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 13), to increase authorized depth.
(10) Waimea river, kaua‘i, hawaii.—Modifications to the project for coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration, Waimea River, Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), to improve protection provided by levees and flood control features.
(11) Chicago sanitary and ship canal dispersal barrier, illinois.—Modifications to the project for Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a; 118 Stat. 1352), for the construction of an emergency access boat ramp in the vicinity of Romeoville, Illinois.
(12) East saint louis and vicinity, illinois.—Modifications to the project for environmental restoration and recreation, authorized by section 1001(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1052), to reevaluate levels of flood risk management and integrate the Spring Lake Project, as recommended in the report of the Chief of Engineers issued on December 22, 2004.
(13) Delaware river mainstem and channel deepening, delaware, new jersey, and pennsylvania.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Delaware River Mainstem and
Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802; 113 Stat. 300; 114 Stat. 2602), to increase the authorized depth.
(14) Hanape?pe? river, hawaii.—Modifications to the project for local flood protection, Hanape?pe? River, island of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 903), for ecosystem restoration and to improve protection provided by levees and flood control features.
(15) Laupa?hoehoe harbor, hawaii.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Laupa?hoehoe Harbor, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 486), for seawall repair and mitigation.
(16) Calcasieu river and pass, louisiana.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481; 121 Stat. 1126), including channel deepening and jetty improvements.
(17) Mississippi river and tributaries, ouachita river, louisiana.—Modifications to the project for flood control of the Mississippi River in it alluvial valley and for its improvement from the Head of Passes to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534), to include bank stabilization on the portion of the project consisting of the Ouachita River from Monroe to Caldwell Parishes, Louisiana.
(18) Mississippi river and tributaries, ouachita river, louisiana.—Modifications to the project for flood control of the Mississippi River in it alluvial valley and for its improvement from the Head of Passes to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534), to study the feasibility of adding 62 miles of the east bank of the Ouachita River Levee System at and below Monroe Parish to Caldwell Parish, Louisiana.
(19) New bedford, fairhaven, and acushnet, massachusetts.—Modifications to the project for hurricane-flood protection at New Bedford, Fairhaven, and Acushnet, Massachusetts, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 305), for navigation improvements and evaluation of the current barrier function.
(20) Hodges village dam, oxford, massachusetts.—Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Hodges Village Dam, Oxford, Massachusetts, authorized pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), to add recreation and ecosystem restoration as a project purpose, including in the vicinity of Greenbriar Park.
(21) Holland harbor, michigan.—Modifications to the portion of the project for navigation Holland (Black Lake), Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 14, 1880 (chapter 211, 21 Stat. 183; 30 Stat. 1130; 46 Stat. 929; 49 Stat. 1036; 68 Stat. 1252), consisting of the Federal Channel of Holland Harbor, for additional deepening.
(22) Monroe harbor, michigan.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Monroe Harbor, Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (chapter 847, 46 Stat. 930), for additional deepening.
(23) Port huron, michigan.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Channels in Lake Saint Clair Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1036), for additional deepening at the mouth of the Black River, Port Huron, Michigan.
(24) Saint joseph harbor, michigan.—Modifications to the portion of the project for navigation, Saint Joseph, Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 14, 1880 (chapter 211, 21 Stat. 183; 30 Stat. 1130; 49 Stat. 1036; 72 Stat. 299), consisting of the Federal Channel of Saint Joseph Harbor, for additional deepening.
(25) Saint marys river, michigan.—Modifications to the project for navigation Middle and West Neebish channels, Saint Marys River, Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 13, 1902 (chapter 1079, 32 Stat. 361; 70 Stat. 54), to bring the channels to a consistent depth.
(26) Bayonne, new jersey.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Jersey Flats and Bayonne, New Jersey, authorized by the first section of the Act of September 22, 1922 (chapter 427, 42 Stat. 1038), for improvements to the navigation channel, including channel extension, widening, and deepening, in the vicinity of Bayonne, New Jersey.
(27) Surry mountain lake dam, new hampshire.—Modifications to the project for flood protection and recreation, Surry Mountain Lake dam, authorized pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1572; 52 Stat. 1216; 58 Stat. 892), to add ecosystem restoration as a project purpose, and to install the proper gates and related equipment at Surry Mountain Lake to support stream flow augmentation releases.
(28) Long beach, new york.—Modifications to the project for storm damage reduction, Atlantic Coast of Long Island from Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet, Long Beach Island, New York, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), to include additional replacement of beach groins to offer storm protection, erosion prevention, and reduce the need for future renourishment.
(29) Bald head island, north carolina.—Modifications to the project for hurricane-flood control protection, Cape Fear to the North Carolina-South Carolina State line, North Carolina, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1419), to add coastal storm risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including shoreline stabilization, as an authorized purpose of the project for the village of Bald Head Island, North Carolina.
(30) Mosquito creek lake, trumbull county, ohio.—Modifications to the project for flood risk management and water supply, Mosquito Creek Lake, Trumbull County, Ohio.
(31) Reno beach-howard farms, ohio.—Modifications to the project for flood control, Reno Beach-Howard Farms, Ohio, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1178), to improve project levees and to provide flood damage risk reduction to the portions of Jerusalem Township, Ohio, not currently benefited by the project.
(32) Delaware river, mantua creek (fort mifflin) and marcus hook, pennsylvania.—Modifications to the project for
navigation, Delaware River, Philadelphia to the sea, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 25, 1910 (chapter 382, 36 Stat. 637; 46 Stat. 921; 49 Stat. 1030; 52 Stat. 803; 59 Stat. 14; 68 Stat. 1249; 72 Stat. 297), to deepen the anchorage areas at Mantua Creek (Fort Mifflin) and Marcus Hook.
(33) Little conemaugh, stonycreek, and conemaugh rivers, pennsylvania.—Modifications to the project for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood risk management, Little Conemaugh, Stonycreek, and Conemaugh rivers, Pennsylvania.
(34) Charleston, south carolina.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1709), including improvements to address potential or actual changed conditions on that portion of the project that serves the North Charleston Terminal.
(35) Addicks and barker reservoirs, texas.—Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Texas, authorized pursuant to the project for Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, Texas, under section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (chapter 699, 53 Stat. 1414; 68 Stat. 1258).
(36) Galveston bay area, texas.—Modifications to the following projects for deepening and associated dredged material placement, disposal, and environmental mitigation navigation:
(A) The project for navigation, Galveston Bay Area, Texas City Channel, Texas, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4090).
(B) 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).
(C) The project for navigation, Galveston Harbor Channel Extension Project, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3836).
(D) The project for navigation, Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project, Harris, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734).
(37) Galveston harbor channel extension project, houston-galveston navigation channels, texas.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Galveston Harbor Channel Extension Project, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3836), to include further deepening and extension of the Federal channel and Turning Basin 2.
(38) Gathright reservoir and falling spring dam, virginia.—Modifications to the project for navigation and flood control, Gathright Reservoir and Falling Spring dam, Virginia, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 645), to include recreation as an authorized project purpose.
(39) Mount st. helens sediment control, washington.—Modifications to the project for sediment control and navigation, Mount St. Helens, Washington, authorized by chapter IV of title I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 318; 114 Stat. 2612), to include dredging to address flood risk management and navigation for federally authorized channels on the Cowlitz River and at the confluence of the Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers.
(40) Monongahela river, west virginia.—Modifications to the project for recreation, Monongahela River, West Virginia.
(c) Special Rule.—Each study authorized by subsection (b) shall be considered a new phase investigation and afforded the same treatment as a general reevaluation.
(d) Special Rule, St. Marys River, Michigan.—The cost of the study under subsection (b)(25) shall be at Federal expense.
(e) Authorization of Feasibility Studies for Projects From CAP Authorities.—
(1) Cedar point seawall, scituate, massachusetts.—
(A) In general.—The Secretary may conduct a feasibility study for the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Cedar Point Seawall, Scituate, Massachusetts.
(B) Requirement.—In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use any relevant information from the project described in that paragraph that was carried out under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).
(2) Jones levee, pierce county, washington.—
(A) In general.—The Secretary may conduct a feasibility study for the project for flood risk management, Jones Levee, Pierce County, Washington.
(B) Requirement.—In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use any relevant information from the project described in that paragraph that was carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
(3) Hatch, new mexico.—
(A) In general.—The Secretary may conduct a feasibility study for the project for flood risk management, Hatch, New Mexico.
(B) Requirement.—In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use any relevant information from the project described in that paragraph that was carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
(4) Fort george inlet, jacksonville, florida.—
(A) In general.—The Secretary may conduct a feasibility study to modify the project for navigation, Fort George Inlet, Jacksonville, Florida, to include navigation improvements or shoreline erosion prevention or mitigation as a result of the project.
(B) Requirement.—In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use any relevant information from the project described in that paragraph that was carried out under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).