US Codex
Bill
Notes

Title II — Studies and reports

S. 4136 · 117th Congress · May 4, 2022 · Lineage

II Studies and reports

Sec. 201 Authorization of feasibility studies

(a)
In general— The Secretary is authorized to investigate the feasibility of the following projects:
(1)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Mill Creek Levee and Walla Walla River, Oregon.
(2)
Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Tittabawassee River, Chippewa River, Pine River, and Tobacco River, Michigan.
(3)
Project for flood risk management, Southeast Michigan.
(4)
Project for flood risk management, McMicken Dam, Arizona.
(5)
Project for flood risk management, Ellicott City and Howard County, Maryland.
(6)
Project for flood risk management, Ten Mile River, North Attleboro, Massachusetts.
(7)
Project for flood risk management and water supply, Fox-Wolf Basin, Wisconsin.
(8)
Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Thatchbed Island, Essex, Connecticut.
(9)
Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina.
(10)
Project for flood risk management, Lower Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou, Texas.
(11)
Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, the Resacas, Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, Texas.
(12)
Project for flood risk management, including levee improvement, Papillion Creek, Nebraska.
(13)
Project for flood risk management, Offutt Ditch Pump Station, Nebraska.
(14)
Project for flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Mohawk River Basin, New York.
(15)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Waikiki Beach, Hawaii.
(16)
Project for ecosystem restoration and coastal storm risk management, Cumberland and Sea Islands, Georgia.
(17)
Project for flood risk management, Wailupe Stream watershed, Hawaii.
(18)
Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Hawaii County, Hawaii.
(19)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Maui County, Hawaii.
(20)
Project for flood risk management, Sarpy County, Nebraska.
(21)
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, including habitat for endangered salmon, Columbia River Basin.
(22)
Project for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and recreation, Newport, Kentucky.
(23)
Project for flood risk management and water supply, Jenkins, Kentucky.
(24)
Project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, Columbus, Kentucky.
(25)
Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, South Shore, Long Island, New York.
(26)
Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and water supply, Blind Brook, New York.
(27)
Project for navigation, Cumberland River, Kentucky.
(b)
Project modifications— The Secretary is authorized to investigate the feasibility of the following modifications to the following projects:
(1)
Modifications to the project for navigation, South Haven Harbor, Michigan, for turning basin improvements.
(2)
Modifications to the project for navigation, Rollinson Channel and channel from Hatteras Inlet to Hatteras, North Carolina, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174), to incorporate the ocean bar.
(3)
Modifications to the project for flood control, Saint Francis River Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172, chapter 188), to provide flood risk management for the tributaries and drainage of Straight Slough, Craighead, Poinsett, and Cross Counties, Arkansas.
(4)
Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, authorized by section 7002(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1366), consistent with the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Cedar River Flood Control System Master Plan.
(5)
Modifications to the project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, for Anchorage F modifications.
(6)
Modifications to the project for navigation, Savannah Harbor, Georgia, without evaluation of additional deepening.
(7)
Modifications to the project for navigation, Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii, for navigation improvements and coastal storm risk management.
(8)
Modifications to the project for navigation, Port of Ogdensburg, New York, including deepening.
(9)
Modifications to the Huntington Local Protection Project, Huntington, West Virginia.

Sec. 202 Special rules

(a)
The studies authorized by paragraphs (12) and (13) of section 201(a) shall be considered a continuation of the study that resulted in the Chief’s Report for the project for Papillion Creek and Tributaries Lakes, Nebraska, signed January 24, 2022.
(b)
The study authorized by section 201(a)(17) shall be considered a resumption and a continuation of the general reevaluation initiated on December 30, 2003.
(c)
In carrying out the study authorized by section 201(a)(25), the Secretary shall study the South Shore of Long Island, New York, as a whole system, including inlets that are Federal channels.
(d)
The studies authorized by section 201(b) shall be considered new phase investigations afforded the same treatment as a general reevaluation.

Sec. 203 Expedited completion of studies

(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)
Modifications to the project for flood risk management, North Adams, Massachusetts, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1936”) (49 Stat. 1572, chapter 688; 33 U.S.C. 701h), and section 3 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1941”) (55 Stat. 639, chapter 377), for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration.
(2)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina.
(3)
Project for flood and coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration, Boston North Shore, Revere, Saugus, Lynn, Maiden, and Everett, Massachusetts.
(4)
Project for flood risk management, De Soto County, Mississippi.
(5)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Chicago shoreline, Illinois.
(6)
Project for flood risk management, Cave Buttes Dam, Arizona.
(7)
Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Chelsea, Massachusetts, authorized by a study resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the Senate dated September 12, 1969.
(8)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Herring River Estuary, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, authorized by a study resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives dated July 23, 1997.
(9)
Project for coastal storm risk management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation, Nauset Barrier Beach and inlet system, Chatham, Massachusetts, authorized by a study resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the Senate dated September 12, 1969.
(10)
Project for flood risk management, East Hartford Levee System, Connecticut.
(11)
Project for flood risk management, Rahway, New Jersey, authorized by section 336 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2712).
(12)
New York and New Jersey Harbor Channel Deepening Improvements, New York and New Jersey.
(13)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Sea Bright to Manasquan, New Jersey.
(14)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.
(15)
Tacoma Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, Washington.
(16)
Project for coastal storm risk management, South Central Coastal Louisiana, Louisiana.
(17)
Project for coastal storm risk management, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(18)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Fox River, Illinois, authorized by section 519 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2653).
(19)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Chicago River, Illinois.
(20)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Three Forks of Beargrass Creek, Kentucky.
(21)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Okeechobee, Florida.
(22)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Western Everglades, Florida.
(23)
Modifications to the project for navigation, Hilo Harbor, Hawaii.
(24)
Project for flood risk management, Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina.
(25)
Modifications to the project for navigation, Auke Bay, Alaska.
(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, authorized by section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577).
(2)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina, authorized by section 7002(3) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1367).
(3)
Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard A. Hanson Dam, Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281).
(4)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, authorized by section 1001(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1051).
(c)
Watershed and river basin assessments— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the following assessments under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a):
(1)
Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
(2)
Ouachita-Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
(3)
Project for watershed assessment, Hawaii County, Hawaii.
(d)
Disposition study— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the disposition study for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a).

Sec. 204 Studies for periodic nourishment

(a)
In general— Section 156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5f)) is amended—
(1)
in subsection (b)—
(A)
in paragraph (1), by striking “15” and inserting “50”; and
(B)
in paragraph (2), by striking “15”;
(2)
in subsection (e)—
(A)
by striking “10-year period” and inserting “16-year period”; and
(B)
by striking “6 years” and inserting “12 years”; and
(3)
by adding at the end the following:

“(f) Treatment of studies—A study carried out under subsection (b) shall be considered a new phase investigation afforded the same treatment as a general reevaluation.”

(b)
Indian River Inlet Sand Bypass Plant— For purposes of the project for coastal storm risk management, Delaware Coast Protection, Delaware (commonly known as the “Indian River Inlet Sand Bypass Plant”), authorized by section 869 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4182), a study carried out under section 156(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5f(b)) shall consider as an alternative for periodic nourishment continued reimbursement of the Federal share of the cost to the non-Federal interest for the project to operate and maintain a sand bypass plant.

Sec. 205 NEPA reporting

(a)
Definitions— In this section:
(1)
Categorical exclusion— The term categorical exclusion has the meaning given the term in section 1508.1 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(2)
Environmental assessment— The term environmental assessment has the meaning given the term in section 1508.1 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(3)
Environmental impact statement— The term environmental impact statement means a detailed written statement required under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
(4)
Finding of no significant impact— The term finding of no significant impact has the meaning given the term in section 1508.1 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(5)
NEPA process—
(A)
In general— The term NEPA process has the meaning given the term in section 1508.1 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(B)
Period— For purposes of subparagraph (A), the NEPA process—
(i)
begins on the date on which the Secretary initiates a project study; and
(ii)
ends on the date on which the Secretary issues, with respect to the project study—
(I)
a record of decision, including, if necessary, a revised record of decision;
(II)
a finding of no significant impact; or
(III)
a categorical exclusion under title I of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).
(6)
Project study— The term project study means a feasibility study for a project carried out pursuant to section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) for which a categorical exclusion, an environmental assessment, or an environmental impact statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(b)
Reports—
(1)
NEPA data—
(A)
In general— The Secretary shall carry out a process to track, and annually submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report containing, the information described in subparagraph (B).
(B)
Information described— The information referred to in subparagraph (A) is, with respect to the Corps of Engineers—
(i)
the number of project studies for which a categorical exclusion was used during the reporting period;
(ii)
the number of project studies for which the decision to use a categorical exclusion, to prepare an environmental assessment, or to prepare an environmental impact statement is pending on the date on which the report is submitted;
(iii)
the number of project studies for which an environmental assessment was issued during the reporting period, broken down by whether a finding of no significant impact, if applicable, was based on mitigation;
(iv)
the length of time the Corps of Engineers took to complete each environmental assessment described in clause (iii);
(v)
the number of project studies pending on the date on which the report is submitted for which an environmental assessment is being drafted;
(vi)
the number of project studies for which an environmental impact statement was issued during the reporting period;
(vii)
the length of time the Corps of Engineers took to complete each environmental impact statement described in clause (vi); and
(viii)
the number of project studies pending on the date on which the report is submitted for which an environmental impact statement is being drafted.
(2)
Public access to NEPA reports— The Secretary shall make publicly available each annual report required under paragraph (1).

Sec. 206 GAO audit of projects over budget or behind schedule

(a)
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of the factors and conditions for each ongoing water resources development project carried out by the Secretary for which—
(1)
the current estimated total project cost of the project exceeds the original estimated total project cost of the project by not less than $50,000,000; or
(2)
the current estimated completion date of the project exceeds the original estimated completion date of the project by not less than 5 years.
(b)
Report— The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the review under subsection (a).

Sec. 207 GAO study on project distribution

(a)
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an analysis of the geographic distribution of annual and supplemental funding for water resources development projects carried out by the Secretary over the previous 10 fiscal years and the factors that have led to that distribution.
(b)
Report— The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the analysis under subsection (a).

Sec. 208 GAO audit of joint costs for operations and maintenance

(a)
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of the practices of the Corps of Engineers with respect to the determination of joint costs associated with operations and maintenance of reservoirs owned and operated by the Secretary.
(b)
Report— The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the review under subsection (a) and any recommendations that result from the review.

Sec. 209 GAO review of Corps of Engineers mitigation practices

(a)
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall carry out a review of the water resources development project mitigation practices of the Corps of Engineers.
(b)
Content— The review under subsection (a) shall include an evaluation of—
(1)
the implementation by the Corps of Engineers of the final rule issued on April 10, 2008, entitled “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources” (73 Fed. Reg. 19594), including, at a minimum—
(A)
the extent to which the final rule is consistently implemented by the districts of the Corps of Engineers; and
(B)
the performance of each of the mitigation mechanisms included in the final rule; and
(2)
opportunities to utilize alternative methods to satisfy mitigation requirements of water resources development projects, including, at a minimum, performance-based contracts.
(c)
Report— The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the review under subsection (a) and any recommendations that result from the review.
(d)
Definition of performance-based contract— In this section, the term performance-based contract means a procurement mechanism by which the Corps of Engineers contracts with a public or private non-Federal entity for a specific mitigation outcome requirement, with payment to the entity linked to delivery of verifiable and successful mitigation performance.

Sec. 210 Sabine–Neches Waterway Navigation Improvement project, Texas

The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of the feasibility study for the project for navigation, Sabine–Neches Waterway, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).

Sec. 211 Great Lakes recreational boating

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare, at full Federal expense, and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report updating the findings of the report on the economic benefits of recreational boating in the Great Lakes basin prepared under section 455(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–21(c)).

Sec. 212 Upper St. Johns River Basin, Central and Southern Florida

(a)
In general— On request and at the expense of the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Secretary shall evaluate the effects of deauthorizing the southernmost 3.5-mile reach of the L–73 levee, Section 2, Osceola County, Florida, on the functioning of the project for flood control and other purposes, Upper St. Johns River Basin, Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176).
(b)
Report— In carrying out the evaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
(1)
prepare a report that includes the results of the evaluation, including—
(A)
the advisability of deauthorizing the levee described in that subsection; and
(B)
any recommendations for conditions that should be placed on a deauthorization to protect the interests of the United States and the public; and
(2)
submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives the report under paragraph (1) as part of the annual report submitted to Congress pursuant to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d).

Sec. 213 Investments for recreation areas

(a)
Findings— Congress finds the following:
(1)
The Corps of Engineers operates more recreation areas than any other Federal or State agency, apart from the Department of Interior.
(2)
Nationally, visitors to nearly 600 dams and lakes, managed by the Corps of Engineers, spend an estimated $12,000,000,000 per year and support 500,000 jobs.
(3)
Lakes managed by the Corps of Engineers are economic drivers that support rural communities.
(b)
Sense of Congress— It is the sense of Congress that the Corps of Engineers should use all available authorities to promote and enhance development and recreational opportunities at lakes that are part of authorized civil works projects under the administrative jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers.
(c)
Report— Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on investments needed to support recreational activities that are part of authorized water resources development projects under the administrative jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers.
(d)
Requirements— The report under subsection (c) shall include—
(1)
a list of deferred maintenance projects, including maintenance projects relating to recreational facilities, sites, and associated access roads;
(2)
a plan to fund the projects described in paragraph (1) over the 5-year period following the date of enactment of this Act;
(3)
a description of efforts made by the Corps of Engineers to coordinate investments in recreational facilities, sites, and associated access roads with—
(A)
State and local governments; or
(B)
private entities; and
(4)
an assessment of whether the modification of Federal contracting requirements could accelerate the availability of funds for the projects described in paragraph (1).

Sec. 214 Western infrastructure study

(a)
Definitions of natural feature and nature-based feature— In this section, the terms natural feature and nature-based feature have the meanings given those terms in section 1184(a) of the WIIN Act (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)).
(b)
Comprehensive study— The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study (referred to in this section as the study) to evaluate the effectiveness of carrying out additional measures, including measures that utilize natural features or nature-based features at or upstream of reservoirs for the purposes of—
(1)
sustaining operations in response to changing hydrological and climatic conditions;
(2)
mitigating the risk of drought or floods, including the loss of storage capacity due to sediment accumulation;
(3)
increasing water supply; or
(4)
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
(c)
Study focus— In conducting the study, the Secretary shall include all reservoirs owned and operated by the Secretary and reservoirs for which the Secretary has flood control responsibilities under section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1944”) (58 Stat. 890, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 709), in the South Pacific Division of the Corps of Engineers.
(d)
Consultation and use of existing data—
(1)
Consultation— In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consult with applicable—
(A)
Federal, State, and local agencies;
(B)
Indian Tribes;
(C)
non-Federal interests; and
(D)
other stakeholders, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(2)
Use of existing data and prior studies— To the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, the Secretary may—
(A)
use existing data provided to the Secretary by entities described in paragraph (1); and
(B)
incorporate—
(i)
relevant information from prior studies and projects carried out by the Secretary; and
(ii)
the latest technical data and scientific approaches with respect to changing hydrological and climatic conditions.
(e)
Report— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that describes—
(1)
the results of the study; and
(2)
any recommendations on site-specific areas where additional study is recommended by the Secretary.
(f)
Savings provision— Nothing in this section provides authority to the Secretary to change the authorized purposes at any of the reservoirs described in subsection (c).

Sec. 215 Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System

Section 8004(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 652 note; Public Law 110–114) is amended—
(1)
by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2)
by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

“(2) Report on water level management—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives an implementation report on opportunities to expand the use of water level management on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System for the purpose of ecosystem restoration.”

Sec. 216 West Virginia hydropower

(a)
In general— For water resources development projects described in subsection (b), the Secretary is authorized—
(1)
to evaluate the feasibility of modifications to such projects for the purposes of adding Federal hydropower or energy storage development; and
(2)
to grant approval for the use of such projects for non-Federal hydropower or energy storage development in accordance with section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the “Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899”) (30 Stat. 1152, chapter 425; 33 U.S.C. 408).
(b)
Projects described— The projects referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1)
Sutton Dam, Braxton County, West Virginia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).
(2)
Hildebrand Lock and Dam, Monongahela County, West Virginia, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 166, chapter 188).
(3)
Bluestone Lake, Summers County, West Virginia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).
(4)
R.D. Bailey Dam, Wyoming County, West Virginia, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1188).
(5)
Stonewall Jackson Dam, Lewis County, West Virginia, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1421).
(6)
East Lynn Dam, Wayne County, West Virginia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).
(7)
Burnsville Lake, Braxton County, West Virginia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).
(c)
Demonstration projects— The authority for facility modifications under subsection (a) includes demonstration projects.

Sec. 217 Recreation and economic development at Corps facilities in Appalachia

(a)
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a plan to implement the recreational and economic development opportunities identified by the Secretary in the report prepared under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2680) at Corps of Engineers facilities located within a distressed or at-risk county (as described in subsection (a)(1) of that section) in Appalachia.
(b)
Considerations— In preparing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider options for Federal funding, partnerships, and outgrants to Federal, State, and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and commercial businesses.

Sec. 218 Automated fee machines

For the purpose of mitigating adverse impacts to public access to outdoor recreation, to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall consider alternatives to the use of automated fee machines for the collection of fees for the use of developed recreation sites and facilities in West Virginia.

Sec. 219 Lake Champlain Canal, Vermont and New York

Section 5146 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1255) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(c) Clarifications

“(1) In general—At the request of the non-Federal interest for the study of the Lake Champlain Canal Aquatic Invasive Species Barrier carried out under section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 1150; 134 Stat. 2652), the Secretary shall scope the phase II portion of that study to satisfy the feasibility determination under subsection (a).

“(2) Dispersal barrier—A dispersal barrier constructed, maintained, or operated under this section may include—

“(A) physical hydrologic separation;

“(B) nonstructural measures;

“(C) deployment of technologies;

“(D) buffer zones; or

“(E) any combination of the approaches described in subparagraphs (A) through (D).”

Sec. 220 Report on concessionaire practices

(a)
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on concessionaire lease practices by the Corps of Engineers.
(b)
Inclusions— The report under subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum—
(1)
an assessment of the reasonableness of the formula of the Corps of Engineers for calculating concessionaire rental rates, taking into account the operating margins for sales of food and fuel; and
(2)
the process for assessing administrative fees to concessionaires across districts of the Corps of Engineers.