US Codex
Bill
Notes

Title II — Studies and Reports

H.R. 7575 · 116th Congress · Jul 30, 2020 · Lineage

II Studies and Reports

Sec. 201 Authorization of proposed feasibility studies

(a)
In general— 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)
Tonto Creek, Gila River, Arizona— Project for flood risk management, Tonto Creek, Gila River, Arizona.
(2)
Sulphur River, Arkansas and Texas— Project for ecosystem restoration, Sulphur River, Arkansas and Texas.
(3)
Cable Creek, California— Project for flood risk management, water supply, and related benefits, Cable Creek, California.
(4)
Del Mar Bluffs, California— Project for shoreline stabilization, Del Mar Bluffs, San Diego County, California.
(5)
Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California— Project for water conservation and water supply, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California.
(6)
Rio Hondo Channel, California— Project for ecosystem restoration, Rio Hondo Channel, San Gabriel River, California.
(7)
Southern California, California— Project for coastal storm damage reduction, Southern California.
(8)
Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Florida— Project for ecosystem restoration and water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Osceola County, Florida.
(9)
St. John’s River and Lake Jesup, Florida— Project for ecosystem restoration, St. John’s River and Lake Jesup, Florida.
(10)
Waimea River, Hawaii— Project for flood risk management, Waimea River, Kauai, Hawaii.
(11)
Chicago area waterways system, Illinois— Project for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and other purposes, Illinois River, Chicago River, Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River, and other waterways in the vicinity of Chicago, Illinois.
(12)
Fox River, Illinois— Project for flood risk management, Fox River, Illinois.
(13)
Lower Missouri River, Kansas— Project for bank stabilization and navigation, Lower Missouri River, Sioux City, Kansas.
(14)
Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana— Project for flood risk management, Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana.
(15)
Kent Narrows and Chester River, Maryland— Project for navigation, Kent Narrows and Chester River, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.
(16)
Boston, Massachusetts— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Boston, Massachusetts, pursuant to the comprehensive study authorized under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2).
(17)
Lower St. Croix River, Minnesota— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Lower St. Croix River, Minnesota.
(18)
Escatawpa River Basin, Mississippi— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Escatawpa River, Jackson County, Mississippi.
(19)
Long Beach, Bay St. Louis and Mississippi Sound, Mississippi— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management, Long Beach, Bay St. Louis and Mississippi Sound, Mississippi.
(20)
Pascagoula River Basin, Mississippi— Project for comprehensive watershed study, Pascagoula, Mississippi.
(21)
Tallahoma and Tallahala creeks, Mississippi— Project for flood risk management, Leaf River, Jones County, Mississippi.
(22)
Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri— Project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri.
(23)
Upper Basin and Stony Brook (Green Brook Sub-basin), Raritan River Basin, New Jersey— Reevaluation of the Upper Basin and Stony Brook portions of the project for flood control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119), including the evaluation of nonstructural measures to achieve the project purpose.
(24)
Lake Ontario shoreline, New York— Project for coastal storm resiliency, Lake Ontario shoreline, New York.
(25)
Wading River Creek, New York— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Wading River Creek, New York.
(26)
Reel Point Preserve, New York— Project for navigation and shoreline stabilization, Reel Point Preserve, New York.
(27)
Goldsmith Inlet, New York— Project for navigation, Goldsmith Inlet, New York.
(28)
Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio— Project for comprehensive watershed study, Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.
(29)
Lower Columbia River Basin (turning basin), Oregon and Washington— Project to improve and add turning basins for the project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280).
(30)
Williamsport, Pennsylvania— Project for flood risk management and levee rehabilitation, greater Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
(31)
City of Charleston, South Carolina— Project for tidal- and inland-related flood risk management, Charleston, South Carolina.
(32)
Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins, Tennessee— Project to deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins, Tennessee.
(33)
Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas— Modification of the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Arthur and Orange County, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), and authorized as a separable element of the project for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, authorized by item 3 of section 1401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3838), to reduce the risk of flooding through the construction of improvements to interior drainage.
(34)
Port of Victoria, Texas— Project for flood risk management, Port of Victoria, Texas.
(35)
Lower Fox River Basin, Wisconsin— Project for comprehensive watershed study, Lower Fox River Basin, Wisconsin.
(36)
Upper Fox River and Wolf River, Wisconsin— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Upper Fox River and Wolf River, Wisconsin.
(b)
Special rule— The Secretary shall consider any study carried out by the Secretary to formulate the modifications to the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Arthur and Orange County, Texas, identified in subsection (a)(33) to be a continuation of the study carried out for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas, authorized by a resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, approved June 23, 2004, and funded by title IV of division B of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, under the heading “Corps of Engineers—Civil—Department of the Army—Construction” (Public Law 115–123; 132 Stat. 76).

Sec. 202 Expedited completions

(a)
Feasibility reports— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a feasibility study for each of the following projects, and if the Secretary determines that the project is justified in a completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the project:
(1)
Project for navigation, St. George Harbor, Alaska.
(2)
Project for shoreline stabilization, Aunu‘u Harbor, American Samoa.
(3)
Project for shoreline stabilization, Tutuila Island, American Samoa.
(4)
Project for flood risk management, Lower Santa Cruz River, Arizona.
(5)
Project for flood control, water conservation, and related purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, California.
(6)
Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Del Rosa Channel, city of San Bernardino, California.
(7)
Project for flood risk management, Lower Cache Creek, California.
(8)
Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Mission-Zanja Channel, cities of San Bernardino and Redlands, California.
(9)
Project for shoreline protection, Oceanside, California, authorized pursuant to section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636; 121 Stat. 1176).
(10)
Project for flood risk management, Prado Basin, California.
(11)
Project to modify the project for navigation, San Francisco Bay to Stockton, California.
(12)
Project to modify the Seven Oaks Dam, California, portion of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101 Stat. 1329–111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat. 1115), to include water conservation as an authorized purpose.
(13)
Project to modify 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 include the construction of a turning basin located near the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal.
(14)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida Project Canal 111 (C–111), South Dade County, Florida.
(15)
Project for comprehensive hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Chicago, Illinois, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664; 113 Stat. 302).
(16)
Project for flood risk management, Wheaton, DuPage County, Illinois.
(17)
Project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Kansas, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on September 24, 2008 (docket number 2803).
(18)
Project for flood control, Amite River and Tributaries east of the Mississippi River, Louisiana.
(19)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Upper Barataria Basin, Louisiana.
(20)
Project to replace the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
(21)
Project to deepen the project for navigation, Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094).
(22)
Project for flood risk management, Rahway River Basin, New Jersey.
(23)
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Highlands, New Jersey.
(24)
Project for navigation, Shark River, New Jersey.
(25)
Project for flood risk management, Rondout Creek-Wallkill River Watershed, New York, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on May 2, 2007 (docket number 2776).
(26)
Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Spring Creek South (Howard Beach), Queens, New York.
(27)
Project to resolve increased silting and shoaling adjacent to the Federal channel, Port of Bandon, Coquille River, Oregon.
(28)
Project for flood control, 42nd Street Levee, Springfield, Oregon, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
(29)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Hood River at the confluence with the Columbia River, Oregon.
(30)
Project for flood risk management, Rio Culebrinas, Puerto Rico.
(31)
Project for flood risk management, Rio Grande de Manati, Puerto Rico.
(32)
Project for flood risk management, Rio Guayanilla, Puerto Rico.
(33)
Project for flood risk management, Dorchester County, South Carolina.
(34)
Project for navigation, Georgetown Harbor, South Carolina.
(35)
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
(36)
Project to modify the projects for navigation and other purposes, Old Hickory Lock and Dam and the Cordell Hull Dam and Reservoir, Cumberland River, Tennessee, authorized by the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636), to add flood risk management as an authorized purpose.
(37)
Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, and related purposes, Lower Rio Grande River, Cameron County, Texas, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on May 21, 2003 (docket number 2710).
(38)
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
(39)
Project for flood risk management, Savan Gut Phase II, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
(40)
Project for flood risk management, Turpentine Run, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
(41)
Project for navigation, North Landing Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Virginia.
(b)
Post-Authorization change reports— The Secretary shall expedite completion of a post-authorization change report for the following projects:
(1)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona.
(2)
Project for flood control, San Luis Rey River, California.
(3)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida Project Canal 111 (C–111), South Dade County, Florida.
(4)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Caloosahatchee River C–43, West Basin Storage Reservoir, Florida.
(5)
Project for flood risk management, Des Moines Levee System, including Birdland Park Levee, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa.
(c)
Watershed and river basin assessments— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of an assessment under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a), for the following:
(1)
Kansas River Basin, Kansas.
(2)
Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts.
(d)
Disposition studies— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a disposition study, carried out under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), for the following:
(1)
The disposition of the project for Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), California.
(2)
The partial disposition of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock facility and surrounding real property, in accordance with the requirements of section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 132 Stat. 3812).

Sec. 203 Feasibility study modifications

(a)
San Francisco Bay, California— Section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930) is amended—
(1)
by inserting “, and along the ocean shoreline of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties,” after “Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers”;
(2)
by inserting “and, with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, the feasibility of and the Federal interest in providing measures to adapt to rising sea levels” after “tidal and fluvial flooding”;
(3)
by striking “investigation” and inserting in its place “investigations”; and
(4)
by inserting after “San Francisco Bay region” the following: “and, with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines and streams running to the bay and ocean shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, the effects of proposed measures or improvements on the local economy; habitat restoration, enhancement, or expansion efforts or opportunities; public infrastructure protection and improvement; stormwater runoff capacity and control measures, including those that may mitigate flooding; erosion of beaches and coasts; and any other measures or improvements relevant to adapting to rising sea levels”.
(b)
Sacramento River, southern Sutter County, California— The study for flood control and allied purposes for the Sacramento River Basin, authorized by section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), is modified to authorize the Secretary to conduct a study for flood risk management, southern Sutter County between the Sacramento River and Sutter Bypass, California.
(c)
Salton Sea, California— In carrying out the program to implement projects to restore the Salton Sea, California, authorized by section 3032 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1113; 130 Stat. 1677), the Secretary is authorized to carry out a study for the construction of a perimeter lake, or a northern or southern subset thereof, for the Salton Sea, California.
(d)
New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, New York and New Jersey— The study for flood and storm damage reduction for the New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132), and being carried out pursuant to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2), is modified to require the Secretary to—
(1)
evaluate and address the impacts of low-frequency precipitation and sea-level rise on the study area;
(2)
consult with affected communities; and
(3)
ensure the study is carried out in accordance with section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c).

Sec. 204 Selma, Alabama

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that—
(1)
provides an update on the study for flood risk management and riverbank stabilization, Selma, Alabama, authorized by resolutions of the Committees on Public Works and Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives on June 7, 1961, and April 28, 1936, respectively, the completion of which the Secretary was required to expedite by section 1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3803); and
(2)
identifies project alternatives necessary to—
(A)
assure the preservation of cultural and historic values associated with national historic landmarks within the study area; and
(B)
provide flood risk management for economically disadvantaged communities within the study area.

Sec. 205 Comprehensive study of the Sacramento River, Yolo Bypass, California

(a)
Comprehensive study— The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the Sacramento River in the vicinity of the Yolo Bypass System, California, to identify actions to be undertaken by the Secretary for the comprehensive management of the Yolo Bypass System for the purposes of flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, hydropower, and recreation.
(b)
Consultation and use of existing data—
(1)
Consultation— In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Governor of the State of California, applicable Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal interests, the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership, and other stakeholders.
(2)
Use of existing data and prior studies— To the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, the Secretary may—
(A)
make use of existing data provided to the Secretary by the entities identified in paragraph (1); and
(B)
incorporate—
(i)
relevant information from prior studies and projects carried out by the Secretary within the study area; and
(ii)
the latest technical data and scientific approaches to changing hydrologic and climatic conditions.
(c)
Recommendations—
(1)
In general— In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary may develop a recommendation to Congress for—
(A)
the construction of a water resources development project;
(B)
the structural or operational modification of an existing water resources development project;
(C)
additional monitoring of, or adaptive management measures to carry out with respect to, existing water resources development projects, to respond to changing hydrologic and climatic conditions; or
(D)
geographic areas within the Yolo Bypass System for additional study by the Secretary.
(2)
Additional considerations— Any feasibility study carried out pursuant to a recommendation under paragraph (1)(D) shall be considered to be a continuation of the comprehensive study authorized under subsection (a).
(d)
Completion of study; report to Congress— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing—
(1)
the results of the comprehensive study conducted under subsection (a), including any recommendations developed under subsection (c);
(2)
any additional, site-specific areas within the Yolo Bypass System where additional study for flood risk management or ecosystem restoration projects is recommended by the Secretary; and
(3)
any interim actions relating to existing water resources development projects undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.
(e)
Definitions— In this section:
(1)
Yolo Bypass System— The term Yolo Bypass System means the system of weirs, levees, bypass structures, and other water resources development projects in California’s Sacramento River Valley, extending from the Fremont Weir near Woodland, California, to the Sacramento River near Rio Vista, California, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (chapter 144; 39 Stat. 949).
(2)
Yolo Bypass and Cache Clough Partnership— The term Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership means the group of parties to the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Memorandum of Understanding, effective May 2016, regarding collaboration and cooperation in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough region.

Sec. 206 Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule, Florida

(a)
In general— In carrying out the review of the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule pursuant to section 1106 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3773), the Secretary shall—
(1)
evaluate the implications of prohibiting releases from Lake Okeechobee through the S–308 and S–80 lock and dam structures on the operation of the lake in accordance with authorized purposes and seek to minimize unnecessary releases to coastal estuaries; and
(2)
to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate with the ongoing efforts of Federal and State agencies responsible for monitoring, forecasting, and notification of cyanobacteria levels in Lake Okeechobee.
(b)
Monthly report— Each month, the Secretary shall make public a report, which may be based on the Water Management Daily Operational Reports, disclosing the volumes of water deliveries to or discharges from Lake Okeechobee & Vicinity, Water Conservation Area I, Water Conservation Area II, Water Conservation Area III, East Coast Canals, and the South Dade Conveyance. Such report shall be aggregated and reported in a format designed for the general public, using maps or other widely understood communication tools.
(c)
Effect— In carrying out the evaluation under subsection (a)(1), nothing shall be construed to authorize any new purpose for the management of Lake Okeechobee or authorize the Secretary to affect any existing authorized purpose, including flood protection and management of Lake Okeechobee to provide water supply for all authorized users.

Sec. 207 Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study

(a)
In general— In carrying out the comprehensive assessment of water resources needs for the Great Lakes System under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a), as required by section 1219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811), the Secretary shall—
(1)
taking into account recent high lake levels within the Great Lakes, assess and make recommendations to Congress on—
(A)
coastal storm and flood risk management measures, including measures that use natural features and nature-based features, as those terms are defined in section 1184 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a);
(B)
operation and maintenance of the Great Lakes Navigation System, as such term is defined in section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238);
(C)
ecosystem protection and restoration;
(D)
the prevention and control of invasive species and the effects of invasive species; and
(E)
recreation associated with water resources development projects;
(2)
prioritize actions necessary to protect critical public infrastructure, communities, and critical natural or cultural resources; and
(3)
to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, utilize existing data provided to the Secretary by Federal and State agencies, Indian Tribes, and other stakeholders, including data obtained through other Federal programs.
(b)
Recommendations; additional study—
(1)
In general— In carrying out the comprehensive assessment described in subsection (a), the Secretary may make a recommendation to Congress for—
(A)
the construction of a water resources development project;
(B)
the structural or operational modification of an existing water resources development project;
(C)
such additional monitoring of, or adaptive management measures to carry out with respect to, existing water resources development projects, to respond to changing hydrologic and climatic conditions; or
(D)
geographic areas within the Great Lakes System for additional study by the Secretary.
(2)
Additional considerations— Any feasibility study carried out pursuant to a recommendation under paragraph (1)(D) shall be considered to be a continuation of the comprehensive assessment described in subsection (a).
(c)
Exemption from maximum study cost and duration limitations— Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) shall not apply to any study recommended under subsection (b)(1)(D).

Sec. 208 Rathbun Lake, Chariton River, Iowa

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that evaluates—
(1)
the existing allocations of storage space for Rathbun Lake, authorized pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1262; 121 Stat. 1124), including the existing allocation for municipal water supply;
(2)
the feasibility of expanding the existing allocation of storage for municipal water supply; and
(3)
the affordability of future municipal water supply allocations from Rathbun Lake, for residential users of such future allocations, at projected future costs.

Sec. 209 Report on the status of restoration in the Louisiana coastal area

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force established by section 7004 of Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1272) shall submit to Congress a report that summarizes the activities and recommendations of the task force, including—
(1)
policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities undertaken for addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
(2)
financial participation by each agency represented on the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

Sec. 210 Lower Mississippi River comprehensive study

(a)
Comprehensive study—
(1)
In general— The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the Lower Mississippi River basin, from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to the Gulf of Mexico, to identify actions to be undertaken by the Secretary for the comprehensive management of the basin for the purposes of flood risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, water supply, hydropower, and recreation.
(2)
Focus areas— In conducting the comprehensive study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall investigate projects, including—
(A)
projects proposed in the comprehensive coastal protection master plan entitled “Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast” prepared by the State of Louisiana and accepted by the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (including any subsequent amendments or revisions), including—
(i)
Ama sediment diversion;
(ii)
Union freshwater diversion;
(iii)
increase Atchafalaya flow to Terrebonne; and
(iv)
Manchac Landbridge diversion; and
(B)
natural features and nature-based features, including levee setbacks and instream and floodplain restoration.
(b)
Consultation and use of existing data— In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with applicable Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian Tribes, non-Federal interests, and other stakeholders, and, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, make use of existing data provided to the Secretary by such parties.
(c)
Recommendations—
(1)
In general— In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary may develop a recommendation to Congress for—
(A)
the construction of a water resources development project;
(B)
the structural or operational modification of an existing water resources development project;
(C)
such additional monitoring of, or adaptive management measures to carry out with respect to, existing water resources development projects, to respond to changing conditions; or
(D)
geographic areas within the Lower Mississippi River basin for additional study by the Secretary.
(2)
Additional considerations— Any feasibility study carried out pursuant to a recommendation under this subsection shall be considered to be a continuation of the comprehensive study required under subsection (a).
(d)
Completion of study; report to Congress— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing—
(1)
the results of the comprehensive study required by this section, including any recommendations developed under subsection (c); and
(2)
any interim actions relating to existing water resources development projects undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.

Sec. 211 Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan

(a)
Assessment— The Secretary shall conduct an assessment of the water resources needs of the Upper Mississippi River under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a).
(b)
Requirements— The Secretary shall carry out the assessment under subsection (a) in accordance with the requirements in section 1206(b) of Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1686).

Sec. 212 Lower Missouri Basin Flood Risk and Resiliency Study, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri

(a)
Additional studies—
(1)
In general— Except as provided in paragraph (2), upon the request of the non-Federal interest for the Lower Missouri Basin study, the Secretary shall expand the scope of such study to investigate and provide recommendations relating to—
(A)
modifications to projects in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri authorized under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program (authorized by section 9(b) of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 891)) and the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation project (authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 19)), including modifications to the authorized purposes of such projects to further flood risk management and resiliency; and
(B)
modifications to non-Federal, publicly owned levees in the Lower Missouri River Basin.
(2)
Exception— If the Secretary determines that expanding the scope of the Lower Missouri Basin study as provided in paragraph (1) is not practicable, and the non-Federal interest for such study concurs in such determination, the Secretary shall carry out such additional studies as are necessary to investigate the modifications described in paragraph (1).
(3)
Continuation of Lower Missouri Basin study— The following studies shall be considered a continuation of the Lower Missouri Basin study:
(A)
Any additional study carried out under paragraph (2).
(B)
Any study recommended to be carried out in a report that the Chief of Engineers prepares for the Lower Missouri Basin study.
(C)
Any study recommended to be carried out in a report that the Chief of Engineers prepares for an additional study carried out under paragraph (2).
(D)
Any study spun off from the Lower Missouri Basin study before the completion of such study.
(E)
Any study spun off from an additional study carried out under paragraph (2) before the completion of such additional study.
(4)
Reliance on existing information— In carrying out any study described in or authorized by this section, the Secretary, to the extent practicable, shall rely on existing data and analysis, including data and analysis prepared under section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16).
(5)
Consideration; consultation— In developing recommendations under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
(A)
consider the use of—
(i)
structural and nonstructural measures, including the setting back of levees and removing structures from areas of recurring flood vulnerability, where advantageous, to reduce flood risk and damages in the Lower Missouri River Basin; and
(ii)
where such features are locally acceptable, natural features or nature-based features (as such terms are defined in section 1184 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a); and
(B)
consult with applicable Federal and State agencies, Indian Tribes, and other stakeholders within the Lower Missouri River Basin and solicit public comment on such recommendations.
(6)
Exemption from maximum study cost and duration limitations— Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) shall not apply to the Lower Missouri Basin study or any study described in paragraph (3).
(7)
Preconstruction, engineering, and design— Upon completion of a study authorized by this section, if the Secretary determines that a recommended project, or modification to a project described in paragraph (1), is justified, the Secretary may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the project or modification.
(8)
Technical assistance—
(A)
In general— For the provision of technical assistance to support small communities and economically disadvantaged communities in the planning and design of flood risk management and flood risk resiliency projects in the Lower Missouri River Basin, for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2026, there are authorized to be appropriated—
(i)
$2,000,000 to carry out section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a), in addition to amounts otherwise authorized to carry out such section; and
(ii)
$2,000,000 to carry out section 22(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16), in addition to amounts otherwise authorized to carry out such section.
(B)
Conditions—
(i)
Limitations not applicable— The limitations on the use of funds in section 206(d) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 and section 22(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 shall not apply to the amounts authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A).
(ii)
Rule of construction— Nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of the Secretary to use any funds otherwise appropriated to carry out section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 or section 22(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 to provide technical assistance described in subparagraph (A).
(9)
Completion of study; report to Congress— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing—
(A)
the results of the study authorized by this section;
(B)
any additional, site-specific areas within the Lower Missouri River Basin for which additional study for flood risk management projects is recommended by the Secretary; and
(C)
any interim actions relating to existing water resources development projects undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.
(b)
Definitions— In this section:
(1)
Lower Missouri Basin study— The term Lower Missouri Basin study means the Lower Missouri Basin Flood Risk and Resiliency Study, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri, authorized pursuant to section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a).
(2)
Small community— The term small community means a local government that serves a population of less than 15,000.

Sec. 213 Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River and Rye Harbor, New Hampshire

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a written status update regarding—
(1)
efforts to address the impacts of shoaling affecting the project for navigation, Rye Harbor, New Hampshire, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480); and
(2)
the project for navigation, Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), as required to be expedited under section 1317 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–270).

Sec. 214 Cougar and Detroit Dams, Willamette River Basin, Oregon

(a)
Report— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available, a report providing an initial analysis of deauthorizing hydropower as a project purpose at the Cougar and Detroit Dams project.
(b)
Contents— The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under subsection (a)—
(1)
a description of the potential effects of deauthorizing hydropower as a project purpose at the Cougar and Detroit Dams project on—
(A)
the operation of the project, including with respect to the other authorized purposes of the project;
(B)
compliance of the project with the Endangered Species Act;
(C)
costs that would be attributed to other authorized purposes of the project, including costs relating to compliance with such Act; and
(D)
other ongoing studies in the Willamette River Basin; and
(2)
identification of any further research needed.
(c)
Project defined— In this section, the terms Cougar and Detroit Dams project and project mean the Cougar Dam and Reservoir project and Detroit Dam and Reservoir project, Willamette River Basin, Oregon, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).

Sec. 215 Port Orford, Oregon

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, at Federal expense, submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a summary report on the research completed and data gathered by the date of enactment of this Act with regards to the configuration of a breakwater for the project for navigation, Port Orford, Oregon, authorized by section 117 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1822; 106 Stat. 4809), for the purposes of addressing shoaling issues to minimize long-term maintenance costs.

Sec. 216 Wilson Creek and Sloan Creek, Fairview, Texas

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a written status update regarding efforts to address flooding along Wilson Creek and Sloan Creek in the City of Fairview, Texas.

Sec. 217 GAO study on mitigation for water resources development projects

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall—
(1)
conduct a study on the mitigation of the impact of water resources development projects, including the impact on fish and wildlife, consistent with the requirements of section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283), section 307(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2317(a)), and section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2283a), including—
(A)
an evaluation of guidance or instructions issued, and other measures taken, by the Secretary to ensure successful mitigation of such impacts;
(B)
a review of the methods of mitigation, including the use of in-lieu fees, mitigation banking, and permittee-responsible mitigation, and their long-term effectiveness of restoring or mitigating ecosystem services impacted by such projects;
(C)
a review of how the use of the different mitigation methods for such projects varies across Corps of Engineers districts;
(D)
an assessment of the backlog of mitigation projects, including the number of mitigation projects pending completion to address such impacts resulting from constructed water resources development projects;
(E)
an evaluation of how the Secretary tracks compliance with the mitigation requirements across Corps of Engineers districts;
(F)
a review of how the mitigation requirements for water resources development projects contributes to the resilience of water resources in the United States;
(G)
an assessment of whether mitigation is being done prior to or contemporaneously with the construction of projects, as required by section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283);
(H)
an evaluation of compliance with section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) for the development of specific mitigation plans for projects, whether such plans were successful in mitigating the designated impacts of the projects, and, in instances where such plans were not successful, what actions the Secretary is taking to modify the plans such that they will be successful; and
(I)
an assessment of how the Secretary might take advantage of natural infrastructure in mitigation planning to reduce flood risks and flood recovery costs for some communities; and
(2)
submit to Congress a report that—
(A)
describes the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1);
(B)
includes recommendations to ensure compliance with and successful implementation of mitigation requirements for water resources development projects; and
(C)
includes recommendations to ensure existing programs and authorities include the use, to the maximum extent practicable, of natural infrastructure.

Sec. 218 GAO study on application of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures

(a)
Study— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the operation and maintenance needs of federally authorized harbor and inland harbor projects, including—
(1)
an inventory of all federally authorized harbor and inland harbor projects;
(2)
an assessment of current uses of such projects (and, to the extent practicable, the national, regional, and local benefits of such uses), including the uses listed in section 210(d)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986;
(3)
an assessment of the annual operation and maintenance needs associated with harbors and inland harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2) of section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238), including a breakdown of such needs for each of the following types of projects—
(A)
emerging harbor projects (as defined in such section);
(B)
moderate-use harbor projects (as defined in such section on the day before the date of enactment of this Act);
(C)
high-use harbor projects (as defined in such section on the day before the date of enactment of this Act); and
(D)
projects assigned to harbors and inland harbors within the Great Lakes Navigation System (as defined in such section);
(4)
an assessment of any deferred operation and maintenance needs for such projects;
(5)
an assessment of the annual funding level trends for moderate-use harbor projects (as defined in section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–121), excluding funds awarded to donor ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports (as such terms are defined in section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201));
(6)
an assessment of projected needs associated with donor ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports (as such terms are defined in section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201)); and
(7)
an itemization of expenditures provided to donor ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports under section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201).
(b)
Report to Congress— Upon completion of the report under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit such report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

Sec. 219 GAO study on administration of environmental banks

(a)
In general— Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that analyzes the administration of section 309 of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act to establish an environmental bank (as defined in such section), such that the Secretary—
(1)
achieves the objectives of the report of the Chief of Engineers for ecosystem restoration in the Louisiana Coastal Area or the objectives of the comprehensive coastal protection master plan entitled “Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast” prepared by the State of Louisiana and accepted by the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (including any subsequent amendments or revisions);
(2)
promotes ridge restoration, barrier island restoration, marsh creation, nonstructural risk management, or any other projects authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, pursuant to such comprehensive coastal protection master plan;
(3)
allows for proactive investment in projects by a public or private entity seeking to generate credits to satisfy responsibilities associated with environmental compliance;
(4)
allows for leveraging additional State, Parish, or Federal funds; and
(5)
recommends methods for awarding additional credit for high-priority projects listed in the report and plan described in paragraph (1).
(b)
Consultation with stakeholders— In carrying out subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall consult with the Secretary, the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, the Governor of Louisiana (or an appointee), and other stakeholders, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 220 Study on Corps of Engineers concessionaire agreements

(a)
Study— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of, a study on commercial concessionaires at Corps of Engineers recreational facilities.
(b)
Requirements— The study under subsection (a) shall include—
(1)
an analysis of Corps of Engineers policies as they relate to the pricing of items sold by commercial concessionaires at Corps of Engineers recreational facilities, including commoditized goods such as fuel and food items;
(2)
an assessment of the impact of gross revenue fees on—
(A)
the sales of items described in paragraph (1);
(B)
the total revenues collected by commercial concessionaires at Corps of Engineers recreational facilities; and
(C)
the amounts of the moneys paid by such concessionaires to the United States—
(i)
amounts equivalent to which are appropriated to the Corps of Engineers for operation and maintenance of recreational facilities; or
(ii)
that are distributed to States and counties under section 7 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701c–3);
(3)
an assessment of the potential impact of using a fixed revenue fee on the sales, revenues, and amounts described in paragraph (2);
(4)
an analysis of Corps of Engineers policies related to the length of commercial concessionaire contracts;
(5)
an assessment of the impacts of changing the length of commercial concessionaire contracts to a minimum of 25 years, including assessment of—
(A)
the potential effects on monetary investment in Corps of Engineers properties by commercial concessionaires, including whether establishing such a minimum contract length would lead to increased investment; and
(B)
whether establishing such a minimum contract length would reduce competition, or result in commercial concessionaires providing less value to the public or to water resources development projects; and
(6)
an assessment of whether changes in the concessionaire fee structure or the minimum length of a commercial concessionaire contract is in the public interest.

Sec. 221 Study on water supply and water conservation at water resources development projects

(a)
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of the Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that analyzes the benefits and consequences of including municipal water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers in carrying out water resources development projects.
(b)
Inclusion— The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under subsection (a)—
(1)
a description of existing water resources development projects with municipal water supply or water conservation as authorized purposes, and the extent to which such projects are utilized for such purposes;
(2)
a description of existing water resources development projects with respect to which—
(A)
municipal water supply or water conservation could be added as a project purpose, including those with respect to which a non-Federal interest has expressed an interest in adding municipal water supply or water conservation as a project purpose; and
(B)
such a purpose could be accommodated while maintaining existing authorized purposes;
(3)
a description of ongoing water resources development project studies the authorizations for which include authorization for the Secretary to study the feasibility of carrying out the project with a purpose of municipal water supply or water conservation;
(4)
an analysis of how adding municipal water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers would affect the ability of the Secretary to carry out future water resources development projects; and
(5)
any recommendations of the Secretary relating to including municipal water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers.

Sec. 222 PFAS review and inventory at Corps facilities

(a)
Inventory of PFAS at Corps facilities—
(1)
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, and annually thereafter the Secretary shall complete an inventory of Corps of Engineers civil works facilities that are or may be contaminated, or could become contaminated, by PFAS.
(2)
Contents of inventory— In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall review and identify—
(A)
all facilities owned or operated by the Corps of Engineers, for which there is a civil works function, that are or may be contaminated, or could become contaminated, by PFAS;
(B)
the nature and extent of any such contamination or potential for contamination, including any potential pathways for human exposure to PFAS;
(C)
response measures taken to monitor, control, remove, or remediate PFAS, or otherwise reduce the risk of human exposure to PFAS;
(D)
for facilities identified under subparagraph (A), the extent to which such facilities (or any such contamination or potential for contamination at such facilities) are related to the civil works functions of the Corps of Engineers;
(E)
the extent to which the Secretary, or other entities, may have responsibility for such contamination or potential for contamination; and
(F)
for facilities identified under subparagraph (A), the costs to remediate and reduce the risk of human exposure to PFAS.
(3)
Coordination with other Federal agencies— To the maximum extent practicable, the actions taken under this subsection shall supplement and support work undertaken by other Federal agencies, including actions taken pursuant to the plan published by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, titled “EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan” and dated February 2019.
(4)
Report to Congress— Upon completion of the inventory under paragraph (1), and annually thereafter concurrent with the President’s annual budget request to Congress, the Secretary shall submit the inventory to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
(b)
PFAS Technology Research—
(1)
Research support— The Secretary, acting through the Hazardous Waste Research Center located at the Engineer Research and Development Center, shall, to the maximum extent practicable, support the efforts of other Federal agencies in the development of innovative technologies and methodologies for the detection, treatment, and cleanup of PFAS associated with Federal facilities, including groundwater associated with such facilities.
(2)
Duplication of efforts— Nothing in this subsection is intended to duplicate the activities undertaken by other Federal agencies as identified in subsection (a)(3).
(c)
Definition— In this section, the term PFAS means a perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

Sec. 223 Report on recreational facilities

No later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that contains—
(1)
an inventory of all recreational infrastructure and facilities associated with water resources development projects;
(2)
an assessment of the annual operation and maintenance needs associated with such infrastructure and facilities;
(3)
an assessment of deferred operation and maintenance needs for such infrastructure and facilities to operate safely at full capacity; and
(4)
an assessment of the economic benefits of recreation to local and regional economies and benefits of sustaining and improving public access at recreational infrastructure and facilities.