Dam Removal: The Federal Role

Changes from October 27, 2021 to March 15, 2024

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Dam Removal ~~and the~~: The Federal Role
~~October 27, 2021~~March 15, 2024
Dam owners Dam owners and other stakeholders sometimes consider dam removal as a policy option to address dam safety, sometimes consider dam removal as a policy option to address dam safety,
ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. For example, dams often affect Anna E. Normand ecosystem processes and aquatic species mobility; these effects may be costly to mitigate and Specialist in Natural may prompt consideration of dam removal. The National Inventory of Dams (NID) lists more The National Inventory of Dams (NID) lists more ~~than~~
~~Anna E. Normand~~
90 Resources Policy than 91,000 dams in the United States, many of which function as part of the nation’s water ,000 dams in the United States, many of which function as part of the nation’s water
~~Analyst in Natural~~
infrastructure and provide benefits infrastructure and provide benefits ~~(e.g.,~~such as flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation, flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation,
~~Resources Policy~~
navigation, and water supplynavigation, and water supply~~). Stakeholders may consider the removal of a dam for various~~

~~reasons—for example, if a certain dam requires major dam safety modifications or no longer~~
~~provides its intended benefits. In addition, dams often affect ecosystem processes and aquatic~~

~~species mobility; these effects may be costly to mitigate and may prompt consideration of dam~~
~~removal. According to a stakeholder database that tracks dam removals, nearly 1,800~~. According to a database that tracks dam removals maintained by the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization American Rivers, over 2,000 dams were removed in the United dams were removed in the United
States from 1912 to States from 1912 to ~~2020, with approximately 800~~2022, with over 40% of those removed from removed from ~~2011 to 2020~~2013 to 2022. Small, nonfederal dams accounted for most . Small, nonfederal dams accounted for most
of these removals; removal of federally owned or regulated dams was less frequent during the 1912-of these removals; removal of federally owned or regulated dams was less frequent during the 1912-~~2020~~2022 period (e.g., period (e.g.,
approximately approximately 7080 of the dams removed since 1912 were federally owned). of the dams removed since 1912 were federally owned).
Dam removal is a multistep process. The decision to remove a dam usually starts with the dam owner Dam removal is a multistep process. The decision to remove a dam usually starts with the dam owner~~. Approximately~~’s consideration. 97% of 97% of
dams dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or public utilities; the federal government owns 3% of dams are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or public utilities; the federal government owns 3% of dams
listed in the NID. Stakeholdersin the NID. Stakeholders, —such as communities, policymakers, river-dependent industriessuch as communities, policymakers, river-dependent industries (e.g., barge companies), tribes, nongovernmental , tribes, nongovernmental
organizations, scientists, and academics, among othersorganizations, scientists, and academics, among others, —also may participate in the dam removal consideration process. also may participate in the dam removal consideration process. ~~This~~
~~process often involves an evaluation of potential alternatives, which can~~Dam removal may be one potential option among other alternatives to address specific concerns relating to the dam. Alternatives to dam removal may include changes to dam operations, dam include changes to dam operations, dam
rehabilitation or repair, modifications to add or improve fish passage, rehabilitation or repair, modifications to add or improve fish passage, ~~dam removal, and/~~or a “no action” option. or a “no action” option.
The federal government’s role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus nonfederal), purpose (e.g., The federal government’s role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus nonfederal), purpose (e.g.,
federally regulated hydropower facilities), location (e.g., a nonfederal dam on federal land), and other factors. Federal law federally regulated hydropower facilities), location (e.g., a nonfederal dam on federal land), and other factors. Federal law
and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal agencies for a proposed dam removal project. and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal agencies for a proposed dam removal project.
Such involvement may include the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit Such involvement may include the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit ~~(33 U.S.C. §1344)~~ from the U.S. Army from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), a National Environmental Policy Act Corps of Engineers (USACE), a National Environmental Policy Act ~~(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.)~~ review process, and review process, and
consultations with government agencies to meet requirements of federal laws. The Federal Power Act consultations with government agencies to meet requirements of federal laws. The Federal Power Act ~~(16 U.S.C. §§791 et~~
~~seq.)~~ regulates nonfederal hydropower projectsregulates nonfederal hydropower projects~~, and the~~. The relicensing process under this authority has in some cases spurred relicensing process under this authority has in some cases spurred
consideration of dam removal. consideration of dam removal.
The congressional role in removal of a federal dam typically depends on whether Congress authorized the dam. For federally The congressional role in removal of a federal dam typically depends on whether Congress authorized the dam. For federally
owned dams that Congress authorized for specific purposes, such as dams owned and operated by owned dams that Congress authorized for specific purposes, such as dams owned and operated by ~~federal water resource~~
~~agencies (e.g., USACE, U.S.~~USACE and the Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation), removal generally requires specific congressional authorization , removal generally requires specific congressional authorization
following a feasibility study that selects dam removal as the preferred alternative. By contrast, following a feasibility study that selects dam removal as the preferred alternative. By contrast, other federal agencies generally may federal agencies generally may
remove federally owned dams remove federally owned dams at their discretion without specific congressional authorizationwithout specific congressional authorization ~~at their discretion~~, based on agency policies and , based on agency policies and
in adherence to state and federal law. For example, federal land management agencies may consider removal of dams in adherence to state and federal law. For example, federal land management agencies may consider removal of dams that they manage when when
seeking to reduce operation and safety costs seeking to reduce operation and safety costs ~~while~~or when pursing restoration initiatives. At times, Congress has considered pursing restoration initiatives. At times, Congress has considered
prohibiting removal of certain federal dams. prohibiting removal of certain federal dams.
The federal government is sometimes involved in the removal of nonfederal dams. Although there is no underlying statutory The federal government is sometimes involved in the removal of nonfederal dams. Although there is no underlying statutory
authority for federal involvement in nonfederal dam removal, Congress has authorized involvement in some individual dam authority for federal involvement in nonfederal dam removal, Congress has authorized involvement in some individual dam
removals when it found a compelling reason to do so, often due to a federal nexus (e.g., proximity to federal land or project, removals when it found a compelling reason to do so, often due to a federal nexus (e.g., proximity to federal land or project,
tribal responsibilities, listed speciestribal responsibilities, listed species concerns). Additionally, Congress has authorized programs that provide support (e.g., grants, ). Additionally, Congress has authorized programs that provide support (e.g., grants,
loans, technical assistance) to address issues including dam safety, flooding risks, fish and wildlife passage, and watershed loans, technical assistance) to address issues including dam safety, flooding risks, fish and wildlife passage, and watershed
restoration. Some of these efforts may facilitate restoration. Some of these efforts may facilitate (or result inor result in) nonfederal dam removal. nonfederal dam removal.
In In ~~the 117th Congress, several bills would create new authorities related to dam removal or would provide emergency and/or~~
~~mandatory appropriations for dam removal activities~~2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), an omnibus authorization and appropriations act, included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal. Congress may consider the federal government’s role in studying and . Congress may consider the federal government’s role in studying and
executing specific projects for dam removal and whether to change the executing specific projects for dam removal and whether to change the ~~amount~~level of appropriations for new or existing of appropriations for new or existing
programs that fund dam removal activities. In addition, Congress may oversee agency implementation of new or amended programs that fund dam removal activities. In addition, Congress may oversee agency implementation of new or amended
authorities for dam removal and may review the effectiveness, efficiency, and priorities of agencies funding dam removal authorities for dam removal and may review the effectiveness, efficiency, and priorities of agencies funding dam removal
activities. activities.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

~~Dam Removal and the~~ link to page 30 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

Introduction
Dams can provide benefits to society, such as flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation, Dams can provide benefits to society, such as flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation,
navigation, and water supply. However, some dams may no longer provide benefits for which navigation, and water supply. However, some dams may no longer provide benefits for which
they were built (e.g., dams that supported mills) or may be abandoned and in disrepair. Dams they were built (e.g., dams that supported mills) or may be abandoned and in disrepair. Dams
often affect ecosystem processes and aquatic species mobility; efforts to mitigate these impacts often affect ecosystem processes and aquatic species mobility; efforts to mitigate these impacts
(e.g., fish ladders) may be costly for dam owners. Maintaining dam operation and safety also (e.g., fish ladders) may be costly for dam owners. Maintaining dam operation and safety also
entails financial costs for operation and maintenance, rehabilitation (i.e., bringing a dam up to entails financial costs for operation and maintenance, rehabilitation (i.e., bringing a dam up to
current safety standards), and repair. For these reasons and others, dam removal is a policy option current safety standards), and repair. For these reasons and others, dam removal is a policy option
to address safety, ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. to address safety, ecosystem restoration, or other concerns.
The The federal government’s involvement in dam removal varies based on whether the federal government owns the dam, pertinent federal law and associated regulations related to the dam and removal activities, and availability of appropriations that may fund dam removal activities. Recent Congresses have provided new authorities, expanded existing authorities, and increased funding for dam removal activities, particularly for nonfederal dam removal projects. One example is the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), which included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal. In more limited cases, Congress has authorized and funded specific dam removal projects, including those involving federal dams and federally regulated dams. Congress also has debated whether to prohibit dam removal projects. The nonprofit industry organization United States Society on Dams defines a United States Society on Dams defines a dam removal project to include all necessary to include all necessary
activities associated with the full or partial removal of a dam and restoration of the river, from activities associated with the full or partial removal of a dam and restoration of the river, from
project planning and permitting through design and implementation.1 project planning and permitting through design and implementation.1 Analysis of the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization American Rivers’ Dam Removal Database shows an increase in dam removal in the last 10-year period of record compared with the previous two 10-year periods of record: 819~~Analysis of a U.S. dam~~
~~removal database shows an apparent increase from 200~~ dams removed between dams removed between ~~1991 and 2000 to~~
~~approximately 800~~2013 and 2022, 554 dams removed between 2003 and 2012, and 254 dams removed between dams removed between ~~2011~~1993 and and ~~2020~~2002.2 The benefits and detriments of a dam .2 The benefits and detriments of a dam
are caseare case -specific, and the feasibility of dam removal often relies on an evaluation of tradeoffs. specific, and the feasibility of dam removal often relies on an evaluation of tradeoffs.
Dam owners and other stakeholders may participate in the evaluation process; stakeholders may Dam owners and other stakeholders may participate in the evaluation process; stakeholders may
include communities, policymakers, river-dependent industries, include communities, policymakers, river-dependent industries, major water users, tribes, nongovernmental tribes, nongovernmental
organizations, scientists, and academics, organizations, scientists, and academics, among others.~~among others. Dam removal can range from partial~~
~~removal to full removal of the dam itself and structures associated with the dam.3~~
The federal government’s role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus The federal government’s role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus
nonfederal), purpose (e.g., federally regulated hydropowernonfederal), purpose (e.g., federally regulated hydropower ~~facilities~~), location (e.g., ), location (e.g., ~~a nonfederal~~
~~dam on~~ federal land), and other factors. This report discusses the U.S. portfolio of dams, dam federal land), and other factors. This report discusses the U.S. portfolio of dams, dam
removal trends, and tradeoffs when considering the consequences of dam removal. It also removal trends, and tradeoffs when considering the consequences of dam removal. It also
addresses federal authorities, regulatory requirements, and assistance for dam removaladdresses federal authorities, regulatory requirements, and assistance for dam removal (the Appendix lists selected federal resources for nonfederal dam removal). In ~~. In~~
addition, it provides examples of prior federal involvement in dam removal projects. Finally, the addition, it provides examples of prior federal involvement in dam removal projects. Finally, the
~~report summarizes legislation related to dam removal that has been introduced in the 117th~~
~~Congress.~~
~~Dams and Dam Removal in the United States~~
~~Dams and their associated structures range in size, design, purpose, ownership, age, potential risk,~~
~~and current condition. These factors are important considerations when determining future~~
~~management options for dams, including the option of removal. Most dam removal projects in the~~
~~United States have been for small, nonfederal dams; in many cases, these projects may not be~~
~~illustrative of the challenges and tradeoffs inherent to removal of larger dams.4 Where dam~~
~~removal has been pursued, considerations in favor of doing so have included benefits such as the~~

1report concludes with some considerations for Congress on the federal role in dam removal. 1 For partial removal, the dam height and storage capacity may be reduced to the point that the structure no longer meets the statutory definition of a dam (which varies from state to state) or no longer presents a downstream hazard. A controlled breach of a dam also may constitute a method of dam removal. United States Society on Dams (USSD), United States Society on Dams (USSD), Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects, July 2015, , July 2015, at
https://www.ussdams.org/https://www.ussdams.org/~~wp-content/uploads/2016/05/15Decommissioning.pdf~~about/white-papers/. Hereinafter, USSD, . Hereinafter, USSD, Guidelines. .
2 American Rivers, “American Rivers Dam Removal Database,” February 2 American Rivers, “American Rivers Dam Removal Database,” February ~~17, 2021, at~~2023, https://doi.org/10.6084/ https://doi.org/10.6084/
m9.figshare.5234068m9.figshare.5234068 ~~(retrieved on September 14, 2021). Hereinafter, American Rivers, “Database.”~~
~~3 For partial removal, the dam height and storage capacity may be reduced to the point that the structure no longer~~
~~meets the statutory definition of a dam (which varies from state to state) or no longer presents a downstream hazard. A~~
~~controlled breach of a dam also may constitute a method of dam removal. USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~4 A narrative list of some of the dams removed from 1999 to 2020 can be found at American Rivers, “69 Dams~~
~~Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers,” at https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/~~
~~DamsRemoved_1999-2020.pdf.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

1

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

. Hereinafter, American Rivers, “Database.” Congressional Research Service 1 link to page 26 Dam Removal: The Federal Role Dams and Dam Removal in the United States Dams and their associated structures range in size, design, purpose, ownership, age, potential risk, and current condition. These factors are important considerations when determining future management options for dams, including the option of removal. Most dam removal projects in the United States have been for small, nonfederal dams; in many cases, these projects may not be illustrative of the challenges and tradeoffs inherent in removal of larger dams.3 In recent years, some hydropower companies and interested parties have agreed to remove larger dams as part of decommissioning Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed hydropower projects, such as the Potter Valley Project and Klamath Hydroelectric Project.4 Where dam removal has been pursued, considerations in favor of doing so have included benefits such as the potential for ecosystem restoration and improved dam safety (i.e., prevention of full or partial potential for ecosystem restoration and improved dam safety (i.e., prevention of full or partial
dam failure), as well as the possibility of replacing benefits provided by dams by other means, dam failure), as well as the possibility of replacing benefits provided by dams by other means,
among other issues. Opponents of some dam removals cite their potential to lessen or eliminate among other issues. Opponents of some dam removals cite their potential to lessen or eliminate
existing benefits, such as energy generation, water supply, and flood risk reduction, or their existing benefits, such as energy generation, water supply, and flood risk reduction, or their
potential to release potential to release accumulated sediments or impact associated infrastructure. sediments or impact associated infrastructure.
Dams by the Numbers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains the National Inventory of Dams (NID), a The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains the National Inventory of Dams (NID), a
database of dams in the United States.5 The NID defines a database of dams in the United States.5 The NID defines a dam as any artificial barrier with the as any artificial barrier with the
ability to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid-borne material for the purpose of storage or ability to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid-borne material for the purpose of storage or
control of water that (1) is at least 25 feet in height, with a storage capacity of more than 15 acre-control of water that (1) is at least 25 feet in height, with a storage capacity of more than 15 acre-
feet; (2) is greater than 6 feet in height, with a storage capacity of at least 50 acre-feet; or (3) feet; (2) is greater than 6 feet in height, with a storage capacity of at least 50 acre-feet; or (3)
poses a significant threat to human life or property should it fail (i.e., high- or significant-hazard poses a significant threat to human life or property should it fail (i.e., high- or significant-hazard
potential dams).6 Thousands of dams across the United States~~dams).6 The 2018 NID included 91,468 dams. Thousands of dams~~ do not meet these criteria and do not meet these criteria and
are not included in the NID.are not included in the NID. As of January 2, 2024, the NID included 91,894 dams.
Most dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or Most dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or
public utilitiespublic utilities~~; in 2018, the~~. The federal government federal government ~~owned approximately~~owns 3% of 3% of ~~NID dams~~dams included in the NID.7 States .7 States
have regulatory authority for more than have regulatory authority for more than 6971% of NID-listed dams. Federal agencies regulate dams % of NID-listed dams. Federal agencies regulate dams
associated with hydropower projects, certain mining activities, and nuclear facilities and associated with hydropower projects, certain mining activities, and nuclear facilities and
materials.8 materials.8
~~The most common type of dam is an earthen dam, which is made from natural soil or rock. Other~~
~~dams include concrete dams, tailings dams (i.e., dams that store mining byproducts), overflow~~
~~dams (i.e., dams regulating downstream flow), and dikes (i.e., dams constructed at a low point of~~
~~a reservoir of water).9 Some dams create reservoirs, which store water for various uses. Other~~
~~dams that have limited storage (i.e., pondage) are called run-of-the-river dams.10 (This report does~~
~~not cover levees, which are man-made structures designed to control water movement along a~~
~~landscape.) Dams have various purposes: recreation, flood control, fish and wildlife management,~~
~~municipal and industrial and/or agricultural water supply, hydroelectric power generation,~~
~~navigation, mining, and others.11 Some dams serve multiple purposes.~~
~~Dams are built to engineering and construction standards and regulations corresponding to the~~
~~time of their construction or rehabilitation. Some dams, including older dams, may not meet~~
~~current dam safety standards, which have evolved over time as scientific data and engineering~~

5 3 A narrative list of some of the dams removed from 1999 to 2020 can be found at American Rivers, “69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers,” February 2021, https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DamsRemoved_1999-2020.pdf. 4 For the Potter Valley Project, see “Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Project (FERC Project No. 77) Surrender Application and Decommissioning Plan Stakeholder Website,” https://www.pottervalleysurrenderproceeding.com/. For the Klamath Hydroelectric Project, see herein the gray box in the Section “Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal” and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), H-1 P-2082-063, November 17, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/media/h-1-p-2082-063. 5 The NID can be accessed at USACE, “National Inventory of Dams,” https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil. Online National Inventory of Dams (NID) data Online National Inventory of Dams (NID) data from January 2, 2024 update are used throughout this report unless otherwise specified. are used throughout this report unless otherwise specified. Hereinafter, January 2, 2024, NID.State and State and
federal agencies self-report dam information to the NID. federal agencies self-report dam information to the NID. ~~As of October 2021, the NID was last updated in 2019 with~~
~~2018 data.~~ In this report, the number of dams owned by federal agencies is based on federal agency reporting to the In this report, the number of dams owned by federal agencies is based on federal agency reporting to the
NID. State agencies also reported additional dams owned by the federal government, though CRS could not confirm NID. State agencies also reported additional dams owned by the federal government, though CRS could not confirm
ownership of these dams.ownership of these dams. ~~The NID can be accessed at https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil. Hereinafter, 2018 NID.~~
6 33 U.S.C. §467. One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover 1 acre of land, about the size 6 33 U.S.C. §467. One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover 1 acre of land, about the size
of a football field, 1 foot deep. of a football field, 1 foot deep.
7 7 ~~2018~~January 2, 2024, NID. NID.
8 For more information, see CRS Report R45981, 8 For more information, see CRS Report R45981, Dam Safety Overview and the Federal Role, by Anna E. Normand. , by Anna E. Normand.
~~9 USSD, “Types of Dams,” at https://www.ussdams.org/dam-levee-education/overview/types-of-dams/.~~
~~10 International Hydropower Association, “Types of Hydropower,” at https://www.hydropower.org/iha/discover-types-~~
~~of-hydropower.~~
~~11 2018 NID.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

2

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~have improved.12 Of the 91,468 dams in the 2018 NID, 15,426 (17%) did not report a~~
~~construction date. Of the 76,042 dams that reported a construction date in the 2018 NID, 50,135~~
~~were built more than 50 years ago.~~
~~Federal guidelines set out~~ Congressional Research Service 2 Dam Removal: The Federal Role The most common type of dam is an earthen dam, which is made from natural soil or rock, while some dams are made primarily of concrete. Some dams create reservoirs, which store water for various uses. Other dams that have limited storage, or pondage, are called run-of-the-river dams.9 (This report does not cover levees, which are man-made structures designed to control water movement along a landscape.) Dams have various purposes: recreation; flood control; fish and wildlife management; municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply; hydroelectric power generation; navigation; mining, and others.10 Some dams serve specialized purposes, such as tailings dams that store mining byproducts, overflow dams that regulate downstream flow, and dikes at a low point of a reservoir of water.11 Some dams serve multiple purposes. Nearly half of dams listed in the NID–over 43,000—were built between 1950 and 1980.12 After this period, construction of new dams slowed; the NID lists 4,850 dams built since 2000. Given that dams are built to the engineering and construction standards and regulations that apply at the time of their construction, some dams may not meet current dam safety standards, which have evolved over time as scientific data and engineering have improved.13 These older dams may not operate properly or may be vulnerable to failure due to certain flooding and seismic events that are now known to be possible at a given site based on improved understanding of weather and flood data, such as probable maximum flood, and seismic data. Federal guidelines set a hazard potential rating to quantify the potential harm associated with a hazard potential rating to quantify the potential harm associated with
a a dam’s failure or misoperation.dam’s failure or misoperation.1314 The three hazard ratings (low, significant, and high The three hazard ratings (low, significant, and high potential) do not ) do not
indicate the likelihood of failure; indicate the likelihood of failure; ~~instead~~rather, the ratings reflect the amount and type of damage a , the ratings reflect the amount and type of damage a
failure failure ~~would~~could cause: cause:
• High hazard: Loss of at least one life is probable High hazard: Loss of at least one life is probable
• Significant hazard: No probable loss of human life but could result in economic Significant hazard: No probable loss of human life but could result in economic
loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, etc. loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, etc.
• Low hazard: No probable loss of human life and few economic or environmental Low hazard: No probable loss of human life and few economic or environmental
losses that generally are limited to the owner losses that generally are limited to the owner
~~Of dams in the 2018 NID, 17% were~~’s responsibilities to address Of the dams listed in the NID, 18% are classified as high hazard potential.15 Since 2000, thousands of dams have been ~~classified as high hazard and 5% did not have a hazard~~
~~classification. From 2000 to 2018, thousands of dams were~~ reclassified, increasing the number of reclassified, increasing the number of
~~high-hazard~~high hazard potential dams dams from 9,921 to 16,598.16 According to FEMA, the primary factor increasing the hazard potential of dams is development upstream and/or downstream of a dam.17 Reclassification from low hazard 9 International Hydropower Association, “Types of Hydropower,” https://www.hydropower.org/iha/discover-types-of-hydropower. 10 January 2, 2024, NID. 11 USSD, “Types of Dams,” https://www.ussdams.org/dam-levee-education/overview/types-of-dams/. 12 January 2, 2024, NID. Some dams were built before the 1900s (approximately 2,300 of the dams listed in the NID). 18,303 dams listed in the NID had no age of construction reported. 13 American Society of Civil Engineers, Infrastructure Report Card: Dams, 2021, https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/dams/; hereinafter~~from 9,921 to 15,629.14~~
~~The NID also includes condition assessments—assessments of relative dam deficiencies~~
~~determined from inspections—as reported by federal and state agencies.15 Of the high-hazard-~~
~~potential dams in the 2018 NID, 15% had a poor or unsatisfactory condition assessment and 22%~~
~~were not rated.16~~
~~Dam Removal by the Numbers~~
~~Removal of dams in the United States has occurred primarily for environmental, dam safety, and~~
~~economic reasons.17 Most dam removals have involved small, nonfederal dams, including run-of-~~
~~the-river dams, with costs ranging from thousands to millions of dollars.18 A lesser number of~~
~~large, federally owned or regulated dams have been removed.~~

~~12 For more information on dam safety, see CRS Report R45981, Dam Safety Overview and the Federal Role, by Anna~~
~~E. Normand. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure: Dams,~~
~~2021, at https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/dams/ (hereinafter, ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card).~~
13 ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card. 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential
Classification System for Dams, 2004, , 2004, at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/fema-333.pdf. https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/fema-333.pdf.
~~14 According to FEMA, the primary factor increasing dams’ hazard potential is development upstream and downstream~~
~~of a dam. Reclassification from low hazard potential to high or significant hazard potential may trigger more stringent~~
~~requirements by regulatory agencies, such as increased spillway capacity, structural improvements, more frequent~~
~~inspections, and requirements to create or update an emergency action plan. 2018~~15 As of January 2, 2024, 4% of dams listed in the NID did not have a hazard classification. 16 January 2, 2024, NID; FEMA, NID; FEMA, The National Dam
Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years 2016-2017, May 2019, , May 2019, at
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-report-2016-2017.pdf; https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-report-2016-2017.pdf;
ASCE, ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card. .
1517 FEMA, FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years ~~2012-2013~~,
~~2014~~2016-2017, May 2019, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-report-2016-2017.pdf; ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card. Congressional Research Service 3 Dam Removal: The Federal Role potential to high or significant hazard potential may trigger more stringent requirements by regulatory agencies, such as increased spillway capacity, structural improvements, more frequent inspections, and requirements to create or update an emergency action plan. The NID also includes condition assessments—assessments of relative dam deficiencies determined from inspections—as reported by state agencies.18 As of January 2, 2024, 15% of the nonfederal high hazard potential dams listed in the NID had a poor or unsatisfactory condition assessment and 20% were not rated.19 Dam Removal by the Numbers Removal of dams in the United States has occurred primarily for environmental, dam safety, and economic reasons.20 These dam removal projects have been driven by local coalitions of nonprofit organizations, community groups, and government agencies. Most dam removals have involved small, nonfederal dams, including run-of-the-river dams, with costs ranging from thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars.21 Fewer federally owned or regulated dams have been removed. According to the American Rivers’ Dam Removal Database, which tracks dam removals, over 2,000~~, at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/dam-safety/progress-report.~~
~~16 Poor condition means one or more dam safety deficiencies are recognized for hydrologic conditions that may~~
~~realistically occur and remedial action is necessary. Unsatisfactory condition means one or more dam safety~~
~~deficiencies are recognized that require immediate action or emergency remedial action for problem resolution. 2018~~
~~NID.~~
~~17 USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~18 Headwater Economics,~~ ~~Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of~~
~~Dam Removal, October 2016, at https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/dam-removal-case-studies/;~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

3

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~According to a stakeholder database that tracks dam removals, nearly 1,800~~ dams were removed dams were removed
in the United States from 1912 to in the United States from 1912 to ~~2020, although this list is likely incomplete due to reporting~~
~~challenges.19 Approximately 70 of these removed dams were federally owned, of which 51~~2022.22 Due to reporting challenges, particularly for the early 20th century, this database is likely incomplete.23 Of those dams listed in the database, approximately 80 were federally owned. Of these federally owned dams, 55 were were
U.S. Forest Service (FS) dams removed between 2015 and U.S. Forest Service (FS) dams removed between 2015 and ~~2020~~2022. Although a majority of existing . Although a majority of existing
dams dams listed within the NID are concentrated in the Plains states and the Southeast, most dam removals within the NID are concentrated in the Plains states and the Southeast, most dam removals
~~have been in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and western coastal states.20~~have occurred elsewhere. According to the According to the
~~database~~Dam Removal Database, Pennsylvania has removed the most dams of any state (, Pennsylvania has removed the most dams of any state (~~342~~367); California has removed ); California has removed
the second-largest number the second-largest number ~~(178~~(181), with nearly half of these from ), with nearly half of these from ~~one national forest;~~the Cleveland National Forest;24 and and
Wisconsin has removed the third-largest number (Wisconsin has removed the third-largest number (~~142~~158), with assistance from a long-running state ), with assistance from a long-running state
grant program for dam grant program for dam ~~removals.21 In 2020, 69~~removal.25 In 2022, 65 dams were removed across dams were removed across ~~23 states—11 in Ohio,~~
~~6 in Massachusetts, and 6 in New York.22 A recent study projects the removal of thousands of~~
~~NID dams by 2050, based on current trends.23~~20 states, with the most dam removals in Ohio 18 FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years 2012-2013, 2014, https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/dam-safety/progress-report. 19 Poor condition means one or more dam safety deficiencies are recognized for hydrologic conditions that may realistically occur and remedial action is necessary. Unsatisfactory condition means one or more dam safety deficiencies are recognized that require immediate action or emergency remedial action for problem resolution. January 2, 2024, NID. 20 USSD, Guidelines. 21 Jeffrey J. Duda et al., “Patterns, Drivers, and a Predictive Model of Dam Removal Cost in the United States,” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 11 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1215471. (hereinafter, Duda et al., “Dam Removal Cost”); Headwater Economics, Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal, October 2016, https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/dam-removal-case-studies/; H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making, 2002, https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/273439.pdf (hereinafter, Heinz Center, Dam Removal). 22 This database is separate from the NID, which does not track dam removals. 23 American Rivers, “Database.” 24 U.S. Forest Service (FS), “Dam Removal on the Cleveland NF,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/?cid=fseprd583291. 25 American Rivers, “Database”; Vincent Gonzales and Margaret A. Walls, Dams and Dam Removals in the United States, Resources for the Future, October 22, 2020, https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/dams-and-dam-removals-united-states/ (hereinafter, Resources for the Future, Dam Removals). Congressional Research Service 4 Dam Removal: The Federal Role (11), Pennsylvania (10), and Virginia (6).26 A 2018 study projected the removal of thousands of NID dams by 2050.27
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also has developed an online site called the Dam Removal The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also has developed an online site called the Dam Removal
Information Portal (DRIP) that provides a map-based visualization of dam removal information Information Portal (DRIP) that provides a map-based visualization of dam removal information
and associated scientific studies.and associated scientific studies.2428 A 2017 review found studies that assess the physical and ecological responses of rivers to dam removals have occurred at less ~~A 2017 review of these studies found that scientific evaluation~~
~~has occurred at fewer~~ than 10% of dam removals than 10% of dam removals ~~and that most~~. Most of these studies were of these studies were ~~short in~~
~~duration (< four years), with limited~~conducted over fewer than four years and often without pre-removal monitoring. pre-removal monitoring.2529 Such studies may provide less information than studies designed for long-term monitoring and comparison between pre-dam removal and post-dam removal.
Considerations for Dam Removal
Dams may be Dams may be ~~considered for removal~~removed for various reasons. Many dams continue to operate for various reasons. Many dams continue to operate ~~after~~
beyond their design their design ~~lives and, if the~~lives. If these dams are not properly maintained and rehabilitated as necessary, dams are not properly maintained and rehabilitated as necessary,
safety issues may arise or sediment buildup in safety issues may arise or sediment buildup in their associated reservoirs may affect reservoirs may affect ~~dam benefits.26 In some~~

~~H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making,~~
~~2002, at https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/273439.pdf (hereinafter, Heinz Center, Dam Removal).~~
~~19 American Rivers, “Database.”~~
20 their performance.30 In some cases, a dam’s original purposes are no longer necessary. In other cases, dam removal may provide environmental benefits. Dam removal may be a viable option when the existing benefits (e.g., hydropower) lost by removing a dam or reservoir could be achieved through alternative means (e.g., other sources of power). However, some existing benefits that dams provide, such as water storage and flood control, may be difficult to replace.31 Most dam removals have been in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and western coastal states.32 Dams removed in the Northeast tend to be dams with safety issues after decades or centuries of inadequate Dams removed in the Northeast tend to be dams with safety issues after decades or centuries of inadequate
maintenance or dams that no longer serve their initial purpose, such as powering mills. The concentration of dam maintenance or dams that no longer serve their initial purpose, such as powering mills. The concentration of dam
removals in the Pacific Northwest may be due to concerns over endangered species and tribal culture affected by dams, removals in the Pacific Northwest may be due to concerns over endangered species and tribal culture affected by dams,
as well as to companies choosing to decommission dams rather than invest in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as to companies choosing to decommission dams rather than invest in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) (FERC) relicensing requirements, such as fish passage construction. 26 American Rivers, “69 Dams Removed in 2020,” February 18, 2021, https://www.americanrivers.org/2021/02/69-dams-removed-in-2020/. 27~~relicensing requirements, such as fish passage construction. Melissa M. Foley et al., “Dam Removal: Listening~~
~~In,” Water Resources Research, vol. 53, no. 7 (2017), pp. 5229-5246; Heinz Center, Dam Removal.~~
~~21 American Rivers, “Database”; Vincent Gonzales and Margaret A. Walls,~~ ~~Dams and Dam Removals in the United~~
~~States, Resources for the Future, October 22, 2020, at https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/dams-and-dam-~~
~~removals-united-states/ (hereinafter, Resources for the Future, Dam Removals).~~
~~22 American Rivers, “69 Dams Removed in 2020,” February 18, 2021, at https://www.americanrivers.org/2021/02/69-~~
~~dams-removed-in-2020/.~~
23 Zbigniew J. Grabowski, Heejun Chang, and Elise F. Granek, “Fracturing Dams, Fractured Data: Empirical Trends Zbigniew J. Grabowski, Heejun Chang, and Elise F. Granek, “Fracturing Dams, Fractured Data: Empirical Trends
and Characteristics of Existing and Removed Dams in the United States,” and Characteristics of Existing and Removed Dams in the United States,” River Research and Applications, vol. 34, no. vol. 34, no.
6 (2018), pp. 526-537. Hereinafter, Grabowski, “Empirical Trends.” 6 (2018), pp. 526-537. Hereinafter, Grabowski, “Empirical Trends.”
2428 U.S. Geological Survey, “Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP),” U.S. Geological Survey, “Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP),” atVersion: 2.3.2, https://data.usgs.gov/drip-dashboard/. https://data.usgs.gov/drip-dashboard/.
25 29 The majority of studies focused on hydrologic and physical responses to dam removal rather than biological and The majority of studies focused on hydrologic and physical responses to dam removal rather than biological and
water quality responseswater quality responses~~, and few~~. Few studies were published on linkages between these physical and ecological studies were published on linkages between these physical and ecological
components. J. Ryan Bellmore et al., “Status and Trends of Dam Removal Research in the United States,” components. J. Ryan Bellmore et al., “Status and Trends of Dam Removal Research in the United States,” Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, vol. 4, no. 2 (2017), p. e1164. , vol. 4, no. 2 (2017), p. e1164.
2630 Most dam infrastructure is designed with expected Most dam infrastructure is designed with expected ~~operation~~operating life of 50 years for the dam’s purpose; however, proper life of 50 years for the dam’s purpose; however, proper
maintenance and necessary rehabilitation and repair may extend maintenance and necessary rehabilitation and repair may extend ~~operation lifecycles~~operating lives. ASCE, . ASCE, Infrastructure Report
Card; Duminda Perera et al., ; Duminda Perera et al., Ageing Water Storage Infrastructure: An Emerging Global Risk, UNU-INWEH Report , UNU-INWEH Report
Series 11, 2021, Series 11, 2021, at https://inweh.unu.edu/ageing-water-storage-infrastructure-an-emerging-global-risk/ (hereinafter, https://inweh.unu.edu/ageing-water-storage-infrastructure-an-emerging-global-risk/ (hereinafter,
Perera et al., Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure). ).
~~Congressional Research Service~~

4

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~cases, a dam’s original purposes are no longer necessary or dam removal may provide~~
~~environmental benefits. Dam removal may be a viable management option when the benefits lost~~
~~by removing a dam or reservoir could be achieved through alternative means; however, it may be~~
~~difficult to replace some benefits that dams provide, such as water storage, flood control, and~~
~~multiple benefits.27~~
~~The decision to remove a dam typically involves an evaluation of potential~~31 Advisory Committee on Water Information, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines for Sediment, December 2017, https://rsm.usace.army.mil/initiatives/other/DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017_508.pdf. Hereinafter, Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines. 32 Melissa M. Foley et al., “Dam Removal: Listening In,” Water Resources Research, vol. 53, no. 7 (2017), pp. 5229-5246; Heinz Center, Dam Removal. Congressional Research Service 5 Dam Removal: The Federal Role Dam removal may be one potential option among other alternatives to address alternatives to address
specific concerns relating to the dam. specific concerns relating to the dam. ~~These alternatives~~Alternatives to dam removal may include changes to dam operations, may include changes to dam operations,
dam rehabilitation or repair, modifications to dam rehabilitation or repair, modifications to ~~include~~add or improve fish passage, or improve fish passage, ~~dam removal, and~~
or a “no action” option.a “no action” option.2833 In some cases, In some cases, ~~the~~ specific concerns can be addressed by partial removal specific concerns can be addressed by partial removal
of the dam rather than by full removal of the dam and associated facilities. of the dam rather than by full removal of the dam and associated facilities.
Identifying and assessing potential dam removal projects involves consideration of diverse Identifying and assessing potential dam removal projects involves consideration of diverse
tradeoffs that may vary in relevance and importance based on the type of dam, the landscape of tradeoffs that may vary in relevance and importance based on the type of dam, the landscape of
the dam, and the stakeholders involved.the dam, and the stakeholders involved.2934 Factors in a decision to pursue a dam removal project Factors in a decision to pursue a dam removal project
also depend in part on the type of dam ownership (e.g., federal government, nonfederal also depend in part on the type of dam ownership (e.g., federal government, nonfederal
government, private, government, private, or abandoned). Below are tradeoffs that ownersabandoned). Below are tradeoffs that owners, and other stakeholders and other stakeholders, may may
evaluate when considering dam removal. evaluate when considering dam removal.
Fish Passage ~~and~~, Aquatic Migration. , and Fisheries A dam may hinder or prevent the passage of anadromous A dam may hinder or prevent the passage of anadromous
~~fish~~ fish (e.g., salmon) and other and other ~~fish~~ aquatic species.species.3035 Blocked passage may affect migration upstream to historic spawning Blocked passage may affect migration upstream to historic spawning
or nursery grounds and downstream during various seasons important to fish migration.or nursery grounds and downstream during various seasons important to fish migration.3136
Fish passage can be a key environmental factor for fish species and is often cited as a primary Fish passage can be a key environmental factor for fish species and is often cited as a primary
consideration for dam removal, especially for dams affecting species listed as either endangered consideration for dam removal, especially for dams affecting species listed as either endangered
or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA;or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA;, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544).3237 Fish passage Fish passage
alternatives for large dams, such as fish ladders or trap-and-haul operations, can be expensive and alternatives for large dams, such as fish ladders or trap-and-haul operations, can be expensive and
may be less effective thanmay be less effective than restoring more natural fish passage fish passage ~~provided~~ by dam removal.by dam removal.3338 Dam removal may rejuvenate Dam removal may rejuvenate
certain riverine fisheries near and upstream of the former dam location; however, if there is certain riverine fisheries near and upstream of the former dam location; however, if there is aanother dam dam
downstream of the removed dam, fish migration may remain limited.downstream of the removed dam, fish migration may remain limited.34

~~27 Advisory Committee on Water Information, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, U.S. Department of the Interior,~~
~~Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines for Sediment, December 2017, at~~
~~https://rsm.usace.army.mil/initiatives/other/DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017_508.pdf. Hereinafter, Reclamation,~~
Sediment Guidelines.
2839 33 David D. Hart et al., “Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration: David D. Hart et al., “Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration:
We Develop a Risk Assessment Framework for Understanding How Potential Responses to Dam Removal Vary with We Develop a Risk Assessment Framework for Understanding How Potential Responses to Dam Removal Vary with
Dam and Watershed Characteristics, Which Can Lead to More Effective Use of This Restoration Method,” Dam and Watershed Characteristics, Which Can Lead to More Effective Use of This Restoration Method,” BioScience, ,
vol. 52, no. 8 (2002), pp. 669-682, vol. 52, no. 8 (2002), pp. 669-682, at https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/8/669/254910. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/8/669/254910.
2934 Natallia L. Diessner et al., “I’ll Be Dammed! Public Preferences Regarding Dam Removal in New Hampshire,” Natallia L. Diessner et al., “I’ll Be Dammed! Public Preferences Regarding Dam Removal in New Hampshire,”
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, vol. 8, no. 1 (2020), at https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/8/1/003/ vol. 8, no. 1 (2020), at https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/8/1/003/
114206/I-ll-be-dammed-Public-preferences-regarding-dam; F. J. Magilligan, C. S. Sneddon, and C. A. Fox, “The 114206/I-ll-be-dammed-Public-preferences-regarding-dam; F. J. Magilligan, C. S. Sneddon, and C. A. Fox, “The
Social, Historical, and Institutional Contingencies of Dam Removal,” Social, Historical, and Institutional Contingencies of Dam Removal,” Environmental Management, vol. 59, no. 6 , vol. 59, no. 6
(2017), pp. 982-994, (2017), pp. 982-994, at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-017-0835-2.pdf (hereinafter, Magilligan, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-017-0835-2.pdf (hereinafter, Magilligan,
“Contingencies of Dam Removal”). “Contingencies of Dam Removal”).
3035 Anadromous fish are fish that live as juveniles in fresh water, migrate to the ocean to develop, and, when sexually fish are fish that live as juveniles in fresh water, migrate to the ocean to develop, and, when sexually
mature, return to freshwater to spawn. mature, return to freshwater to spawn.
3136 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, “Reopening Rivers to Migratory Fish in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, “Reopening Rivers to Migratory Fish in the
Northeast,” Northeast,” at https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c7dfb5ea18da4c7db9eb77848b827b6f; USSD, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c7dfb5ea18da4c7db9eb77848b827b6f; USSD, Guidelines. .
3237 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), “What Is Fish Passage?,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), “What Is Fish Passage?,” at https://www.fws.gov/https://www.fws.gov/~~fisheries/fish-passage/what-~~
~~is-fish-passage.html.~~
~~33 USSD, Guidelines.~~
34story/what-fish-passage. 38 For instance, a news article from the Associated Press determined that two-thirds of the $1.2 billion per year spent on endangered and threatened species goes toward recovery of fish. Mathew Brown and John Flesher, “Most Money for Endangered Species Goes to a Small Number of Creatures, Leaving Others in Limbo,” Associated Press, December 30, 2023. USSD, Guidelines. 39 FWS, “Dam Removal: An Opportunity for Our Rivers,” fact sheet, FWS, “Dam Removal: An Opportunity for Our Rivers,” fact sheet, at https://www.https://www.~~fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-sheet/~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

5

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~At the same time, dam removal~~oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/equity/NativeAmericanEducation/Documents/SB13%20Curriculum/Dam%20Removal%20An%20Opportunity%20for%20Our%20Rivers.pdf; J. Ryan Bellmore et al., “Conceptualizing Ecological Responses to Dam Removal: If You Remove It, What’s to Come?,” BioScience, vol. 69, no. 1 (2019), pp. 26-39, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/1/26/5285462 (hereinafter, Bellmore, BioScience). Congressional Research Service 6 Dam Removal: The Federal Role Although dam removal may benefit riverine species, it may jeopardize recreational fisheries for species supported by the may jeopardize recreational fisheries for species supported by the
reservoir habitatreservoir habitat~~.35~~ created by the dam.40 Further, reservoirs created by dams may provide reliable fish refuge habitat Further, reservoirs created by dams may provide reliable fish refuge habitat
under reduced rainfall and flow conditions in regions where under reduced rainfall and flow conditions in regions where ~~human-induced~~ climate change may climate change may
be affecting precipitation trendsbe affecting precipitation trends~~.36~~ or where water withdrawals have affected water levels.41 In addition, a dam may provide a beneficial impediment to In addition, a dam may provide a beneficial impediment to
aquatic species migration, such as in the case of exotic or invasive species that could negatively aquatic species migration, such as in the case of exotic or invasive species that could negatively
impact impact ~~upstream~~surrounding populations of native or managed fish species. populations of native or managed fish species.3742
River Restoration. Waters impounded by a dam may result in a lake-like habitat of warmer Waters impounded by a dam may result in a lake-like habitat of warmer
water or stratified water temperatures, water or stratified water temperatures, ~~and~~while dam removal may result in more free-flowing cold dam removal may result in more free-flowing cold
water habitat found in water habitat found in undammed riverine environments.riverine environments.43 In addition to lower water temperatures, dam In addition to lower water temperatures, dam
removal may result in increased dissolved oxygen and improved aquatic habitat diversity and removal may result in increased dissolved oxygen and improved aquatic habitat diversity and
availability.availability.44 For example, dam removal may lead to revegetation of the formerly inundated areas, For example, dam removal may lead to revegetation of the formerly inundated areas,
which can result in the creation or restoration of riparian buffers or flood plain wetlands which can result in the creation or restoration of riparian buffers or flood plain wetlands
beneficial for birds and other terrestrial species. beneficial for birds and other terrestrial species. ~~For this reason, dam~~Dam removal projects also may removal projects also may
include planting programs and erosion protection measures to accelerate desired revegetation, include planting programs and erosion protection measures to accelerate desired revegetation,
preserve water quality, and prevent dust hazards.preserve water quality, and prevent dust hazards.3845 Although limited studies on dam removal have Although limited studies on dam removal have
provided evidence that dammed ecosystemsprovided evidence that dammed ecosystems ~~may quickly~~ return to riverine conditions following return to riverine conditions following
dam removal, the studies also show that the post-dam ecosystem may not necessarily be the same dam removal, the studies also show that the post-dam ecosystem may not necessarily be the same
as the pre-dam ecosystem.as the pre-dam ecosystem.3946
Sediment Management. Sedimentation behind a dam may require intensive dam maintenance or Sedimentation behind a dam may require intensive dam maintenance or
~~may accelerate the end of the dam’s life.40 Dam removal may reestablish the natural sediment~~
~~transport and deposition that supports riverine ecosystems; however, managing the initial release~~
~~of trapped sediment, and the potential of that sediment being contaminated, is often a~~
~~consideration for a dam removal project.41 Sediment~~may diminish the dam’s benefits because it reduces the water storage capacity of the associated reservoir over time.47 Dam removal may reestablish the natural sediment transport and deposition that occurred prior to dam installation. However, sediment management also may represent a significant management also may represent a significant
portion of the total portion of the total dam removal project cost because~~dam removal project cost. If removing a dam could release impounded~~
~~sediments that may be contaminated at levels above background levels for the river system, then~~
~~those sediments may need to be removed or contained to prevent downstream release. Even if~~
~~reservoir sediments are not contaminated,~~ sediment release following dam removal may affect sediment release following dam removal may affect
downstream conditions.downstream conditions.4248 The sudden release of fine and coarse sediments may The sudden release of fine and coarse sediments may, at least at least
temporarilytemporarily, increase the suspended sediment concentration, possibly creating lethal conditions increase the suspended sediment concentration, possibly creating lethal conditions for fish. This~~for~~
~~fish, and~~ may result in sediment deposition along the downstream channel, where there may be may result in sediment deposition along the downstream channel, where there may be
fish spawning beds. If coarse sediment is deposited along a channel, river water surface fish spawning beds. If coarse sediment is deposited along a channel, river water surface
elevations may increase and affect flood stages.elevations may increase and affect flood stages.43

~~dam-removal.pdf; J. Ryan Bellmore et al., “Conceptualizing Ecological Responses to Dam Removal: If You Remove~~
~~It, What’s to Come?,” BioScience, vol. 69, no. 1 (2019), pp. 26-39, at https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/1/~~
~~26/5285462 (hereinafter, Bellmore, BioScience).~~
3549 40 Leandro E. Miranda, Leandro E. Miranda, Reservoir Fish Habitat Management, 2017, , 2017, at https://www.friendsofreservoirs.com/wp-content/https://www.friendsofreservoirs.com/wp-content/
uploads/2017/01/Reservoir-Fish-Habitat-Management-_Manual.pdf. uploads/2017/01/Reservoir-Fish-Habitat-Management-_Manual.pdf.
3641 Stephen Beatty et al., “Rethinking Refuges: Implications of Climate Change for Dam Busting,” Stephen Beatty et al., “Rethinking Refuges: Implications of Climate Change for Dam Busting,” Biological
Conservation, vol. 209 (2017), pp. 188-195, , vol. 209 (2017), pp. 188-195, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.007.
3742 For example, dams throughout the Great Lakes states prevent sea lamprey from migrating upstream into tributary For example, dams throughout the Great Lakes states prevent sea lamprey from migrating upstream into tributary
streams and rivers. Bellmore, streams and rivers. Bellmore, BioScience. .
~~38 USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~39 Bellmore, BioScience.~~
~~40 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure.~~
~~41 Bellmore, BioScience; Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines.~~
~~42 Bellmore, BioScience.~~
~~43 USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

6

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~Public Safety.~~ 43 Angela T. Bednarek, “Undamming Rivers: A Review of the Ecological Impacts of Dam Removal,” Environmental Management, 2001, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 803-814. 44 Katherine Abbott, Allison Roy, and Keith Nislow, Restoring Aquatic Habitats Through Dam Removal, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-148-2022, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3996/css92498424. 45 USSD, Guidelines. 46 Bellmore, BioScience. 47 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure. 48 Bellmore, BioScience. 49 USSD, Guidelines. Congressional Research Service 7 Dam Removal: The Federal Role In addition, the potential of sediment being contaminated with potentially toxic concentrations of mineral or organic chemicals (e.g., mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) is a consideration for a dam removal project.50 If removing a dam releases impounded sediments that may be contaminated at levels above background levels for the river system, then those sediments may need to be removed or contained to prevent downstream contamination. These mitigation measures also may increase the cost of a dam removal project. Public Safety Dam owners are responsible for meeting relevant regulatory requirements related Dam owners are responsible for meeting relevant regulatory requirements related
to dam safety.to dam safety.44 51 Deficient dams may fail due to floods, earthquakes, progressive deterioration, or Deficient dams may fail due to floods, earthquakes, progressive deterioration, or
lack of lack of ~~maintenance; dam~~maintenance. Dam failure can pose a risk to life and property, as well as a loss of dam failure can pose a risk to life and property, as well as a loss of dam
benefits. Dam owners may address dam safety concerns through measures other than dam benefits. Dam owners may address dam safety concerns through measures other than dam
removal, both removal, both ~~nonstructural (e.g.,~~through nonstructural measures, such as lowering water storage lowering water storage), and structural and structural ~~(e.g., rehabilitation,~~
~~repair).45~~measures, such as rehabilitation and repair.52 In some instances, the safety of abandoned dams becomes the responsibility of federal, In some instances, the safety of abandoned dams becomes the responsibility of federal,
state, or local government agencies; in these cases, dam removal and site restoration to ensure state, or local government agencies; in these cases, dam removal and site restoration to ensure
public safety may be a desirable alternative to taking over legal ownership.public safety may be a desirable alternative to taking over legal ownership.46 53 Outside of potential Outside of potential
structural concerns, dams also may pose public safety hazardsstructural concerns, dams also may pose public safety hazards, such as hazardous currents, to recreational users. to recreational users.4754
Conversely, removing a dam may increase the potential flood risks to downstream areas Conversely, removing a dam may increase the potential flood risks to downstream areas ~~(i.e.,~~ by by
removing a structure that reduces flood riskremoving a structure that reduces flood risk~~).48~~.55 In some cases, partial dam removal may be a In some cases, partial dam removal may be a
compromise to reduce downstream hazard potential from dam failure while retaining some of the compromise to reduce downstream hazard potential from dam failure while retaining some of the
dam’s flood control capacity. Otherwise, alternative flood risk reduction measures may need to be dam’s flood control capacity. Otherwise, alternative flood risk reduction measures may need to be
implemented or constructed implemented or constructed ~~following~~in conjunction with dam removal to provide protection from dam removal to provide protection from ~~unregulated,~~uncontrolled high high
~~flows.~~
~~Costs of Alternatives.~~ flows no longer regulated by the dam. Costs A decision to pursue dam removal can be driven by the costs of ongoing A decision to pursue dam removal can be driven by the costs of ongoing
maintenance, maintenance, the need for dam safety rehabilitation or repairs, or ecosystem mitigationdam safety rehabilitation or repairs, or ecosystem mitigation required because of effects of the dam on living resources. These costs may exceed the dam’s benefits, particularly if the dam , particularly if the dam
is no longer serving its original designed purpose (e.g., hydropower)is no longer serving its original designed purpose (e.g., hydropower) ~~and is providing few or no~~
~~benefits. Overall costs for dam removal by the owner may be lower than modifications that~~
. For example, regulatory agencies may requireregulatory agencies may require modifications, such as the construction and operation of fish passage structures , such as the construction and operation of fish passage structures
or or structural modifications to accommodate larger floods or stronger earthquakes.56 Costs of these modification may exceed overall costs for dam removal by the owner. 50 Bellmore, BioScience; Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines. 51 Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), “Roadmap to Reducing Dam Safety Risks,” 2024, https://damsafety.org/Roadmap. 52~~structural modifications to accommodate larger floods or earthquakes.49 The cost of dam~~
~~removal varies based on the type and location of the dam. For example, a stakeholder group~~
~~estimated that, keeping all other factors constant, dam removal increases in costs by 10% as dam~~
~~height increases by 10% and that concrete and cement dams have higher removal costs than~~
~~earthen dams.50~~
~~Dam removal considerations also include who will pay for dam removal and compensation for~~
~~lost benefits of the dam and reservoir.51 Funding issues often limit whether and when dam~~
~~removal will move forward, even when the owner and other stakeholders agree to remove a dam.~~
~~Dam removal projects with complications that result in added expenses (e.g., projects involving~~
~~contaminated sediments) may require supplemental funding beyond what a dam owner can~~
~~provide. Specific funding assistance may be available for dam removal that would not be~~
~~available for other project alternatives. Some states, nongovernment organizations, and~~

~~44 Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), “Roadmap to Reducing Dam Safety Risks,” at~~
~~https://damsafety.org/Roadmap.~~
45 Common safety improvements to dams may include increased spillway discharge capacity; replacement of inlet and Common safety improvements to dams may include increased spillway discharge capacity; replacement of inlet and
outlet structures, gates, and valves; modifications to increase stability of concrete and masonry dams; modifications to outlet structures, gates, and valves; modifications to increase stability of concrete and masonry dams; modifications to
control seepage and piping potential of embankment dams; erosion control improvements for embankment dams and control seepage and piping potential of embankment dams; erosion control improvements for embankment dams and
unlined spillways; and dam overtopping protection. USSD, unlined spillways; and dam overtopping protection. USSD, Guidelines. .
4653 USSD, USSD, Guidelines. .
4754 ASDSO, “Public Safety Hazard,” ASDSO, “Public Safety Hazard,” at2024, https://damsafety.org/public-safety-hazards. https://damsafety.org/public-safety-hazards.
4855 Heinz Center, Heinz Center, Dam Removal; Julien Boulange et al., “Role of Dams in Reducing Global Flood Exposure Under Julien Boulange et al., “Role of Dams in Reducing Global Flood Exposure Under
Climate Change,” Climate Change,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1 (2021), pp. 1-7. , vol. 12, no. 1 (2021), pp. 1-7.
4956 Costs for these types of modifications may require a significant expenditure of project funds and a temporary loss of Costs for these types of modifications may require a significant expenditure of project funds and a temporary loss of
project benefits during construction. USSD, project benefits during construction. USSD, Guidelines.
~~50 Resources for the Future, Dam Removals.~~
51 Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

78

link to page link to page 2123 link to page link to page 2226 link to page link to page 2226 Dam Removal ~~and the Federal Role~~

: The Federal Role The cost of dam removal varies based on numerous factors. A 2023 study found that dam height, annual average discharge of water at the dam site, and project complexity were the predominant drivers of removal cost.57 One stakeholder group estimated that, keeping all other factors constant, the cost of dam removal increases by 10% as dam height increases by 10%. Concrete and cement dams have higher removal costs than earthen dams.58 Dam removal considerations also include (1) who will pay for dam removal, (2) who will pay compensation for lost benefits of the dam and reservoir, and (3) who will be compensated for those lost benefits.59 These issues may limit whether and when dam removal will move forward, even when the owner and other stakeholders agree to remove a dam. Dam removal projects with unforeseen complications (e.g., projects involving contaminated sediments) could add expenses beyond original estimates and may require supplemental funding. Some states, nongovernment organizations, and companies have provided funding for dam removal, including for abandoned dams.companies have provided funding for dam removal, including for abandoned dams.5260 In some In some
cases, the federal government has provided funding for dam removal.cases, the federal government has provided funding for dam removal.53
~~Project~~ 61 Benefits and Associated Value. of Operating Dams Dam removal may affect the Dam removal may affect the ~~power sector, fisheries,~~
~~agriculture~~benefits provided by the dam, such as hydropower, agricultural production, recreation, nearby , recreation, nearby ~~properties~~property values, and cultural , and cultural ~~heritage. If the dam and reservoir are still~~
~~providing benefits, then considerations~~history. Considerations may include whether those benefits would remain after may include whether those benefits would remain after
dam removal, perhaps through alternate means, or whether stakeholders would be compensated dam removal, perhaps through alternate means, or whether stakeholders would be compensated
for lost benefits.for lost benefits.5462
• Hydropower.. Dam removal halts hydropower generation.Dam removal halts hydropower generation.~~55 If alternative access~~
~~to electricity is available, removing small or~~ 63 Removing small or obsolete hydropower dams may obsolete hydropower dams may
have a limited impact on communities have a limited impact on communities ~~using hydropower. By contrast, in~~
~~communities where there are no viable power alternatives, hydropower dam~~
~~removal may have negative consequences.~~
~~ Agricultural Uses. The agricultural sector generally benefits from dams, which~~
utilizing hydropower, particularly if other sources can substitute for the small amounts of power lost from these dams. In communities where there are no viable alternatives to dams which supply most of the electricity, hydropower dam removal may have major impacts on power supply. • Agricultural Production. Dams and their reservoirs may provide a steady water ~~provide a steady water~~ supply source supply source ~~from their reservoirs~~to the agricultural sector. However, the . However, the
agricultural sector also may benefit from dam removal if it would provide an agricultural sector also may benefit from dam removal if it would provide an
opportunity to farm lands previously opportunity to farm lands previously ~~in the reservoir footprint~~underwater and if there were and if there were
~~little need for water supply storage from a reservoir.56~~
~~ Recreation.~~ ~~The primary purpose of a plurality~~viable alternatives to water supplies instead of a reservoir.64 • Recreation. Recreation is the most common primary purpose of dams in the ~~of dams in the United States is~~
~~recreation, which the public may value highly.57 Dam removal~~United States.65 Dam removal and the resulting change from a reservoir to a river system may provide new may provide new
~~recreational opportunities for river boating (e.g., rafting and paddling) but may~~
~~reduce water activities that require more stable and deep pools (e.g., motor~~
~~boating).58 Dam removal also may negatively alter aesthetics by leaving a~~
~~reservoir footprint, but this newly exposed zone may establish new ecosystems,~~
~~create green space, and spur riverfront revitalization.59 Recreational facilities~~
~~(such as public boat ramps and campgrounds) located along the former lakeshore~~
~~of a reservoir may need to be relocated closer to the river.~~
~~ Property Values. Dam removal may not be desirable for lakefront (i.e.,~~
~~reservoir) properties that would no longer be near the water following dam~~
~~removal.60 Dam removal may be attractive for those who seek riverfront~~
~~properties.61 Some dam removal considerations for property value may include~~
~~the value of added land once the reservoir is removed, changes in tax rates, and~~

52recreational opportunities for boating on river currents 57 Authors also developed an application for estimating dam removal costs, which could be used for exploratory analyses and potential dam removal planning. Duda et al., “Dam Removal Cost.” 58 Resources for the Future, Dam Removals. 59 Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines. 60 American Rivers, American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal: Guide to Selected Funding Sources, October 2000, , October 2000, at
~~https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Paying-Dam-Removal_513758_7~~https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/DamSafety/Documents/Paying-for-Dam-Removal-American-Rivers-2000.pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers, .pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers, Paying
for Dam Removal. .
~~53 See~~61 See sections herein “Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal” and and “Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam
Removal.”
5462 Although dam removal may result in the loss of project benefits, some project benefits may be achieved by other Although dam removal may result in the loss of project benefits, some project benefits may be achieved by other
means and project lands may be sold or developed for other purposes. USSD, means and project lands may be sold or developed for other purposes. USSD, Guidelines. .
5563 Perera et al., Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure. .
5664 Perera et al., Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure. .
5765 Recreation was the primary purpose of Recreation was the primary purpose of 3133% of dams % of dams listed in the January 2, 2024, NID. Congressional Research Service 9 Dam Removal: The Federal Role (e.g., rafting and paddling), but may reduce water activities that require more stable and deep pools (e.g., motorboating and sailing).66 Dam removal and draining of the reservoir also may leave a reservoir footprint of exposed mud, which could diminish aesthetic value and be a source of dust when the mud dries. Alternatively, this newly exposed zone may establish new ecosystems, create green space, and spur riverfront revitalization.67 Recreational facilities, such as public boat ramps and campgrounds, located along the former shoreline of a reservoir may need to be removed or relocated closer to the new river channel. • Property Values. “Lakefront” properties would no longer be near the water following dam removal and draining of the reservoir, which could diminish those property values.68 However, dam removal may be attractive for those who seek riverfront properties.69 Some dam removal considerations for property value may include the value of added land once the reservoir is drained, changes in tax rates, and ~~in the 2018 NID.~~
~~58 USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~59 USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~60 William L. Graf, Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects, Heinz Center, 2003, at~~
~~http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/NGO/DamResearchFullReport.pdf.~~
~~61 Heinz Center, Dam Removal.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

8

~~link to page 15~~ ~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

property buyout options due to the loss of reservoir storage and the property buyout options due to the loss of reservoir storage and the ~~altered~~ reduced level level
of flood protection.of flood protection.6270
• Cultural ~~History~~Heritage. Dam removal may impact the cultural . Dam removal may impact the cultural ~~history and~~ heritage of heritage of
a particular a particular region. Obsolete dams may still hold value to communities because region. Obsolete dams may still hold value to communities because
of their long-standing history and ties to past industries. Commemorating the of their long-standing history and ties to past industries. Commemorating the
location of a former dam or leaving behind some dam remnants, however, may location of a former dam or leaving behind some dam remnants, however, may
satisfy those wishing to acknowledge cultural history.satisfy those wishing to acknowledge cultural history.6371 Dam removal may Dam removal may
restore access to sacred lands or may lead to revival of culturally important restore access to sacred lands or may lead to revival of culturally important
species. At the same time, exposure of previously inundated cultural and species. At the same time, exposure of previously inundated cultural and
archeological sites may subject these sites to erosion or human disturbance.archeological sites may subject these sites to erosion or human disturbance.64
72 • Associated Infrastructure. The loss of reservoir storage and changes in river The loss of reservoir storage and changes in river
flow from dam removal may affect associated infrastructure. Reservoir flow from dam removal may affect associated infrastructure. Reservoir
drawdown may impact communities that rely on infrastructure around the drawdown may impact communities that rely on infrastructure around the
shoreline upstream of dams. Reservoirs also affect groundwater, and dam shoreline upstream of dams. Reservoirs also affect groundwater, and dam
removal may alter groundwater flow and groundwater availability downstream of removal may alter groundwater flow and groundwater availability downstream of
damsdams ~~(e.g., water intake, wastewater disposal, local wells and springs).65~~
~~Users of reservoir water supply may need to~~.73 Users of water from reservoirs or slack water behind dams may need to modify intake structures, develop alternative water resources develop alternative water resources, or adopt water or adopt water
conservation measures following dam removal.conservation measures following dam removal.74 Legal rights to water diversions may need to be Legal rights to water diversions may need to be
addressed if there is a loss of water storage. Changes to channel water depths and locking addressed if there is a loss of water storage. Changes to channel water depths and locking
~~structures associated with the dam may affect river~~ structures associated with the dam may affect river 66 USSD, Guidelines. 67 USSD, Guidelines. 68 William L. Graf, Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects, Heinz Center, 2003, http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/NGO/DamResearchFullReport.pdf. 69 Heinz Center, Dam Removal. 70 USSD, Guidelines. 71 Magilligan, “Contingencies of Dam Removal.” 72 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure; USSD, Guidelines. 73 Desirée D. Tullos et al., “Synthesis of Common Management Concerns Associated with Dam Removal,” JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 52, no. 5 (2016), pp. 1179-1206. 74 For example, see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), “Green River Dam No. 5 Removal Work Temporarily Halted While Crews Perform Additional Surveys,” July 21, 2022, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/3082131/green-river-dam-no-5-removal-work-temporarily-halted-while-crews-perform-additi/; and Lenhart, Christian F. “A Preliminary Review of NOAA’s Community-based Dam Removal and Fish Passage Projects.” Coastal Management, 31, no. 1 (2003): 79-98. Congressional Research Service 10 link to page 17 link to page 26 Dam Removal: The Federal Role navigation, and dam removal may eliminate a navigation, and dam removal may eliminate a
river crossing.river crossing.6675 Existing bridges, roadway and railroad embankments, levees, drainage culverts, Existing bridges, roadway and railroad embankments, levees, drainage culverts,
and buried or submerged utilities (e.g., water and natural gas pipelines) may be subjected to and buried or submerged utilities (e.g., water and natural gas pipelines) may be subjected to
higher flow and erosion following dam removal.higher flow and erosion following dam removal.6776 A dam removal project could A dam removal project could ~~mitigate for~~include mitigation of some some
~~or all of these effects, but the decision to pursue dam removal would need to weigh potential~~
~~impacts to existing infrastructure against cost and effectiveness of mitigation measures, among~~
~~other considerations~~or all of these effects. .
Federal Role and Resources for Dam Removal
The federal government’s involvement in dam removal varies based on dam ownershipThe federal government’s involvement in dam removal varies based on dam ownership ~~(e.g.,~~
~~federal versus nonfederal),~~ , regulations and required permitting related to the dam and removal regulations and required permitting related to the dam and removal
activities, and availability of federal assistance for dam removal. Removal of federal dams that activities, and availability of federal assistance for dam removal. Removal of federal dams that
were authorized by Congress for specific purposes, such as those managed and operated by were authorized by Congress for specific purposes, such as those managed and operated by
~~federal water resource~~some federal agencies (e.g., USACE, agencies (e.g., USACE, ~~Reclamation~~the Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation]), in most cases requires specific ), in most cases requires specific
congressional authorization.congressional authorization.6877 Federal agencies that manage federally owned dams that lack Federal agencies that manage federally owned dams that lack
specific congressionally authorized purposes may exercise their discretion to remove these dams, specific congressionally authorized purposes may exercise their discretion to remove these dams,
in in adherence to agency policy and state and federal law. ~~adherence to agency policy and state and federal law.~~

~~62 USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~63 Magilligan, “Contingencies of Dam Removal.”~~
~~64 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure; USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~65 Desirée D. Tullos et al., “Synthesis of Common Management Concerns Associated with Dam Removal,”~~ ~~JAWRA~~
~~Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 52, no. 5 (2016), pp. 1179-1206.~~
~~66 USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~67 USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~68 Removal of congressionally authorized dams owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or by~~
~~Reclamation has been rare. See below section on “Federal Dams.”~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

9

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

The Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c) provides the statutory authority for the The Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c) provides the statutory authority for the
regulation of nonfederal hydropower projectsregulation of nonfederal hydropower projects that usually include dams. Federal agencies may be involved in most . Federal agencies may be involved in most
nonfederal dam removal projects as part of the overall regulatory process, though federal nonfederal dam removal projects as part of the overall regulatory process, though federal
regulations may not apply to some projects. Congress also has authorized programs that may aid regulations may not apply to some projects. Congress also has authorized programs that may aid
in nonfederal dam removal and, in in nonfederal dam removal and, in ~~very~~ limited cases, has authorized and funded federal limited cases, has authorized and funded federal
involvement for specific nonfederal dam removal projects.involvement for specific nonfederal dam removal projects.78
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Federal law and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal Federal law and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal
agencies for a proposed dam removal project.agencies for a proposed dam removal project.6979 The following are selected federal laws that The following are selected federal laws that
commonly commonly ~~dictate~~require federal agency regulatory actions for dam removal projects. federal agency regulatory actions for dam removal projects.
Clean Water Act~~, Section 404.~~ and Rivers and Harbors Act Most dam removal projects require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Most dam removal projects require a Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 permit from USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Section 404 permit from USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States (33 U.S.C. §1344).United States (33 U.S.C. §1344).70 80 USACE may issue two types of Section 404 permits for a dam USACE may issue two types of Section 404 permits for a dam
removal project:removal project: (1) individual permits or individual permits or (2) general permits, including nationwide permits (NWPs). general permits, including nationwide permits (NWPs).
Larger, more complex projects may be reviewed under the individual permit process, whereas Larger, more complex projects may be reviewed under the individual permit process, whereas
general permitsgeneral permits, such as 75 USSD, Guidelines. 76 USSD, Guidelines. 77 Removal of congressionally authorized dams owned by USACE or by Reclamation has been rare. See herein section on “Federal Dams.” 78 See herein “Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal.” 79 ~~such as NWPs or regional permits may be issued for smaller, less complex dam~~
~~removals.71 In January 2017, USACE published a new NWP specifically for low-head dam~~
~~removal.72~~
~~In conjunction with a CWA Section 404 permit, USACE issues a Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899~~
~~(RHA) Section 10 permit for activities affecting a navigable waterway (33 U.S.C. §403) if there~~
~~is no adverse impact on interstate navigation.73~~
National Environmental Policy Act. A proposed project with dam removal as an alternative that
~~qualifies as a major federal action will trigger a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42~~
~~U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) review process.74 For dam removal projects, the most common types of~~
~~actions that would trigger NEPA review include consideration of removing a federally owned~~
~~dam or a dam on federal land, the process to surrender a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission~~

69 Additional state environmental compliance requirements may vary but generally complement federal regulatory Additional state environmental compliance requirements may vary but generally complement federal regulatory
compliance requirements. Local regulations may require various permits specific to local jurisdictions. USSD, compliance requirements. Local regulations may require various permits specific to local jurisdictions. USSD,
Guidelines. .
7080 For more information, see Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Permit Program Under CWA 404,” For more information, see Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Permit Program Under CWA 404,” at
March 11, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404; and https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404; and ~~section “Permits, Regulations, and~~
~~Enforcement” in~~ CRS Report RL30030, CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz. Congressional Research Service 11 Dam Removal: The Federal Role NWPs, or regional permits may be issued for smaller, less complex dam removals.81 In January 2017, USACE published a new NWP specifically for low-head dam removal.82 In conjunction with a CWA Section 404 permit, most dam removal projects also require a Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) Section 10 permit from USACE for activities affecting a navigable waterway (33 U.S.C. §403).83 National Environmental Policy Act A proposed project with dam removal as an alternative that qualifies as a major federal action will trigger a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) review process.84 The most common types of actions that would trigger NEPA review include consideration of removing a federally owned dam or a dam on federal land, the process to surrender a FERC hydropower project license, application for a CWA Section 404 permit, and use of ~~Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz.~~
~~71 EPA, “Frequent Questions on Removal of Obsolete Dams,” EPA-840-F-16-001, December 2016, at~~
~~https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/frequent-questions-removal-obsolete-dams. Hereinafter, EPA, “Frequent Questions.”~~
~~72 For the purposes of a nationwide permit, USACE defines the term low-head dam as a dam built across a stream to~~
~~pass flows from upstream over all, or nearly all, of the dam’s width on a continual and uncontrolled basis. In general, a~~
~~low-head dam does not have a separate spillway or spillway gates and provides little storage. USACE, “Issuance and~~
~~Reissuance of Nationwide Permits,” 82 Federal Register 1860, January 6, 2017. Nationwide Permit 53, “Removal of~~
~~Low-Head Dams,” is available at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll7/id/8593.~~
~~73 American Rivers, Obtaining Permits to Remove a Dam, at http://scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/hazard_mitigation/~~
~~background_material/dam_removal/Obtaining_Permits_to_Remove_a_Dam.pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers,~~
Obtaining Permits.
~~74 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) process requires federal agencies to~~
~~consider environmental impacts in the decisionmaking process for a major federal action. For more information on the~~
~~NEPA process, see CRS Report RL33152,~~ ~~The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and~~
~~Implementation, by Linda Luther.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

10

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~(FERC) hydropower project licensing, application for a CWA Section 404 permit, or use of~~
federal funds federal funds for a dam removal ~~for a~~ project. project.
Under NEPA, a Under NEPA, a ~~project could involve~~dam removal project could trigger three actions: (1) federal issuance of a categorical exclusion (CATEX) federal issuance of a categorical exclusion (CATEX) or
, (2) development of an environmental assessment (EA)development of an environmental assessment (EA), or (3) development of or an environmental impact statement (EIS).an environmental impact statement (EIS).75
85 The level of effort, review time, and public comment period vary depending on the level of NEPA The level of effort, review time, and public comment period vary depending on the level of NEPA
analysis required. Federal agency issuance of a CATEX exempts further analysis and analysis required. Federal agency issuance of a CATEX exempts further analysis and
documentation of the project in an EA or documentation of the project in an EA or an EIS.EIS.7686 The development of an EA or The development of an EA or an EIS may EIS may
require the federal agency to evaluate “no action” and other feasible alternatives and to conduct require the federal agency to evaluate “no action” and other feasible alternatives and to conduct
analyses to support conclusions regarding environmental impacts.analyses to support conclusions regarding environmental impacts.7787
Agencies may develop programmatic EAs and EISs for conducting environmental analyses of Agencies may develop programmatic EAs and EISs for conducting environmental analyses of
similar federal actions.similar federal actions.7888 For some comprehensive restoration projects across a landscape or 81 EPA, “Frequent Questions on Removal of Obsolete Dams,” EPA-840-F-16-001, December 2016, https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/frequent-questions-removal-obsolete-dams. Hereinafter, EPA, “Frequent Questions.” 82 For the purposes of a nationwide permit, USACE defines the term low-head dam as a dam built across a stream to pass flows from upstream over all, or nearly all, of the dam’s width on a continual and uncontrolled basis. In general, a low-head dam does not have a separate spillway or spillway gates and provides little storage. USACE has since updated the nationwide permits. Nationwide Permit 53, “Removal of Low-Head Dams,” has an effective date of February 25, 2022, and an expiration date of March 14, 2026. USACE, Nationwide Permit 53 - Removal of Low-Head Dams, https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/docs/missions/regulatory/2021%20NWP/NWP-53.pdf. 83 American Rivers, Obtaining Permits to Remove a Dam, August 2007, http://scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/hazard_mitigation/background_material/dam_removal/Obtaining_Permits_to_Remove_a_Dam.pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers, Obtaining Permits. 84 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts in the decisionmaking process for a major federal action. For more information on the NEPA process, see CRS Report RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation. 85 EPA, “Frequent Questions.” 86 For example, FS ~~For some comprehensive restoration projects across a landscape or~~
~~watershed, a region-wide programmatic EA or EIS covering a suite of restoration techniques,~~
~~including dam removal, may be pursued rather than addressing specific projects in individual EAs~~
~~or EISs.79 If an NWP is used for a dam removal project, then no additional activities pursuant to~~
~~NEPA requirements would be needed for issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit.80~~
Consultations. As part of issuing permits or complying with NEPA, federal agencies, nonfederal
~~regulatory agencies, or dam owners may need to consult with government agencies and tribes to~~
~~meet the requirements of federal laws.81 The following are selected examples of consultations that~~
~~are commonly required for dam removal projects.~~

~~75 EPA, “Frequent Questions.”~~
~~76 For example, the U.S. Forest Service (FS)~~ Categorical Exclusion 18 allows the restoration of wetlands, streams, and Categorical Exclusion 18 allows the restoration of wetlands, streams, and
riparian areas by removing, replacing, or modifying water control structures including, but not limited to, dams, levees, riparian areas by removing, replacing, or modifying water control structures including, but not limited to, dams, levees,
dikes, drainage tiles, ditches, culverts, pipes, valves, gates, and fencing to allow waters to flow into natural channels dikes, drainage tiles, ditches, culverts, pipes, valves, gates, and fencing to allow waters to flow into natural channels
and floodplains that restore natural flow regimes to the extent practicable. FS, “US Forest Service Categorical and floodplains that restore natural flow regimes to the extent practicable. FS, “US Forest Service Categorical
Exclusions for Soil and Water Restoration Activities,” Exclusions for Soil and Water Restoration Activities,” atJune 7, 2021, https://www.fs. https://www.fs.~~fed.us~~usda.gov/emc/nepa/restorationCE//emc/nepa/restorationCE/index.html. 87.
77 In many cases, an environmental assessment (EA) would be an appropriate level of analysis for dam removal, as long In many cases, an environmental assessment (EA) would be an appropriate level of analysis for dam removal, as long
as the agency concludes through the EA that there is a finding of no significant impact. However, for more complex as the agency concludes through the EA that there is a finding of no significant impact. However, for more complex
projects with the potential for significant impacts, an environmental impact statement (EIS) may be required. EPA, projects with the potential for significant impacts, an environmental impact statement (EIS) may be required. EPA,
“National Environmental Policy Act Review Process,” “National Environmental Policy Act Review Process,” atOctober 3, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act- https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-
review-process. review-process.
7888 NOAA’s Office of Habitat Conservation completed programmatic NEPA documents in 2002, 2006, and 2015 (continued...) Congressional Research Service 12 Dam Removal: The Federal Role watershed, a region-wide programmatic EA or EIS covering a suite of restoration techniques, including dam removal, may be pursued rather than addressing specific projects in individual EAs or EISs.89 If an NWP is used for a dam removal project, then no additional activities pursuant to NEPA requirements would be needed for issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit.90 Consultations As part of issuing permits or complying with NEPA, federal agencies, nonfederal regulatory agencies, or dam owners may need to consult with government agencies and tribes to meet the requirements of federal laws.91 The following are selected examples of consultations that are commonly required for dam removal projects. • If threatened or endangered species are present at or near the dam, projects may require ~~NOAA’s Office of Habitat Conservation completed programmatic NEPA documents in 2002, 2006, and 2015~~
~~(Restoration Center Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement) to assess the impacts of its habitat restoration~~
~~activities, reduce administrative costs, and maximize program efficiency. NOAA Fisheries, “Environmental~~
~~Compliance in the Office of Habitat Conservation,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/~~
~~environmental-compliance-office-habitat-conservation.~~
~~79 For example, FS evaluated restoration and removal of 81 dams in Cleveland National Forest in a single EA, which~~
~~reduced the time and expense to complete the NEPA process compared with conducting EAs for individual dams and~~
~~provided flexibility in the timing and removal methods for individual dams. FS,~~ ~~Environmental Assessment Trabuco~~
~~District Dam Removal Project: Silverado, Holy Jim, and San Juan Creeks, February 2014, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/~~
~~project/?project=41140&exp=overview.~~
~~80 EPA, “Frequent Questions”; USSD, Guidelines.~~
~~81 USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

11

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~ If threatened or endangered species are present at or near the dam, projects may require~~
Section 7 ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the Section 7 ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the impact of dam removal on these National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the impact of dam removal on these
species to avoid injury to the species.species to avoid injury to the species.8292
• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; 16 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; 16 U.S.C. U.S.C.
§§1801 et seq.) may require consultation to ensure a dam removal §§1801 et seq.) may require consultation to ensure a dam removal project would not adversely would not adversely
~~impact~~affect essential fish habitat established in any fishery management plan developed by a essential fish habitat established in any fishery management plan developed by a
fishery management council.fishery management council.8393
• Proposed actions affecting Native American interests, including fishing rights Proposed actions affecting Native American interests, including fishing rights ~~and~~
and cultural resources, may involve consultations with the affected tribal governments and the cultural resources, may involve consultations with the affected tribal governments and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).8494
• Dam removal activities may trigger an obligation to assess the proposed action’s Dam removal activities may trigger an obligation to assess the proposed action’s ~~impact~~
impact on historic properties (e.g., potentially exposed archaeological sites, the dam itself) with on historic properties (e.g., potentially exposed archaeological sites, the dam itself) with
the state historic preservation officer, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic the state historic preservation officer, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (Preservation Act (1654 U.S.C. § U.S.C. §~~470f).85~~§300101 et seq.).95
In addition to these consultations, removal activities may In addition to these consultations, removal activities may ~~trigger federal statutes that require the~~
require a state to issue a certification that actions are consistent with the state’s implementation of federal state to issue a certification that actions are consistent with the state’s implementation of federal
law. For example, some dam removal activities require a water quality certification pursuant to law. For example, some dam removal activities require a water quality certification pursuant to
CWA Section 401 (33 U.S.C. §1341) to ensure the proposed activity will not violate state water CWA Section 401 (33 U.S.C. §1341) to ensure the proposed activity will not violate state water
quality standards. Some removal projects also require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination quality standards. Some removal projects also require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
~~System permit issued by the state pursuant to CWA Section 402 (33 U.S.C. §1342), which sets~~
~~conditions and effluent limitations under which a facility may discharge potential pollutants into~~
~~navigable waters of the United States.86 If the dam is located in a coastal zone, the state must~~
~~issue a certification pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.)~~
~~stating that the proposed activity is consistent with the state’s approved coastal zone management~~
~~program.87~~
~~Federal Dams~~
~~Federal dams are dams owned by the federal government and managed by one or more federal~~
~~agencies. According to the 2018 NID, in that year, federal agencies managed 2,714 federally~~
~~owned dams, or 3% of the dams in the NID.88 Federally owned dams include dams that were~~
~~constructed based on congressional authorizations specific to each dam (e.g., most dams managed~~
~~by USACE and Reclamation) and dams that were constructed or acquired through broader~~
~~authority not specific to an individual dam (e.g., most dams managed by federal land~~

~~82 For more information, see CRS Report R46867,~~ ~~Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation and~~
~~Infrastructure Projects~~System permit issued by (Restoration Center Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement) to assess the impacts of its habitat restoration activities, reduce administrative costs, and maximize program efficiency. NOAA Fisheries, “Environmental Compliance in the Office of Habitat Conservation,” February 14, 2024, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/environmental-compliance-office-habitat-conservation. 89 For example, FS evaluated restoration and removal of 81 dams in Cleveland National Forest in a single EA, which reduced the time and expense to complete the NEPA process compared with conducting EAs for individual dams and provided flexibility in the timing and removal methods for individual dams. FS, Environmental Assessment Trabuco District Dam Removal Project: Silverado, Holy Jim, and San Juan Creeks, February 2014, https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41140&exp=overview. 90 EPA, “Frequent Questions”; USSD, Guidelines. 91 USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits. 92 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF12423, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation, by Erin H. , by Erin H. Ward~~Ward, R. Eliot Crafton,~~ and Pervaze A. Sheikh. and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
8393 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(2); USSD, 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(2); USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, ; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits. .
8494 For more information, see CRS Insight IN11606, For more information, see CRS Insight IN11606, Tribal Consultation: Administration Guidance and Policy
Consideration, by , by ~~Tana Fitzpatrick.~~
~~85 USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits.~~
~~86 For more information, see section “Permits, Regulations, and Enforcement” in CRS Report RL30030,~~ ~~Clean Water~~
~~Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz.~~
~~87 For more information, see CRS Report R45460,~~ ~~Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Overview and Issues for~~
~~Congress, by Eva Lipiec.~~
~~88 2018 NID.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

12

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~management agencies).89 For individually authorized dams, the authorizing statute for each~~Mariel J. Murray. 95 For more information, see CRS Report R47543, Historic Properties and Federal Responsibilities: An Introduction to Section 106 Reviews, by Mark K. DeSantis. Congressional Research Service 13 Dam Removal: The Federal Role the state pursuant to CWA Section 402 (33 U.S.C. §1342), which sets conditions and effluent limitations under which a facility may discharge potential pollutants into navigable waters of the United States.96 If the dam is located in a coastal zone, the state must issue a certification pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.) stating that the proposed activity is consistent with the state’s approved coastal zone management plan.97 Federal Dams Federal dams are owned by the federal government and managed by one or more federal agencies. According to the NID, federal agencies managed 2,844 federally owned dams, or 3% of the dams listed in the NID.98 Federally owned dams include dams that were constructed based on congressional authorizations specific to each dam (e.g., most dams managed by USACE and Reclamation) and dams that were constructed or acquired through broader authority not specific to an individual dam (e.g., most dams managed by federal land management agencies).99 For individually authorized dams, the authorizing statute for each dam or project including a dam dam
provides the primary guidance for the dam’s management to satisfy authorized purposes; provides the primary guidance for the dam’s management to satisfy authorized purposes;
subsequent acts may provide additional operating authority.subsequent acts may provide additional operating authority.90100 Removal of Authorized Federal Dams
Removal of a federal dam that was constructed or acquired under a project-specific authority may Removal of a federal dam that was constructed or acquired under a project-specific authority may
require authorization by Congress.require authorization by Congress.91101 This process generally begins with a federal agency, such as This process generally begins with a federal agency, such as
USACE or Reclamation, conducting a study, under its authority, that considers various USACE or Reclamation, conducting a study, under its authority, that considers various
alternatives and environmental laws and regulations.alternatives and environmental laws and regulations.92102 If the agency selects removal as the 96 For more information, see section “Permits, Regulations, and Enforcement” in CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz. 97 For more information, see CRS Report R45460, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Overview and Issues for Congress, by Eva Lipiec. 98 January 2, 2024, NID. 99 ~~If the agency selects removal as the~~
~~preferred alternative, then it may recommend that Congress authorize removal.93 If Congress~~
~~authorizes the agency recommendation, Congress also would need to appropriate funds to~~
~~conduct dam removal, which would be used along with any required cost sharing from a~~
~~nonfederal partner.94~~
~~Generally, removal of a congressionally authorized dam has been rare.95 A study for removal of~~
~~this type of dam would likely only take place if the dam is no longer serving its purpose (e.g.,~~
~~commercial navigation); the dam poses a safety threat; the dam is not competitive for dam safety~~
~~modification funding; and/or dam removal may provide aquatic ecosystem benefits.96~~

89 Federal land management agencies include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FWS, FS, and National Park Federal land management agencies include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FWS, FS, and National Park
Service (NPS). For more information on federal land management agencies, see https://www.crs.gov/video/detail/Service (NPS). For more information on federal land management agencies, see https://www.crs.gov/video/detail/
WVB00399. WVB00399.
90100 For example, USACE’s Water Control Management Engineering Regulation states that “these public laws generally For example, USACE’s Water Control Management Engineering Regulation states that “these public laws generally
authorize the project for construction and operation for certain purposes with details being outlined in referenced authorize the project for construction and operation for certain purposes with details being outlined in referenced
project documents, which USACE carries out, including through the development of water control plans and project documents, which USACE carries out, including through the development of water control plans and
appropriate revisions thereto under the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers.” USACE, Water Control appropriate revisions thereto under the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers.” USACE, Water Control
Management, Engineering Regulation 1110-2-240, May 30, 2016, Management, Engineering Regulation 1110-2-240, May 30, 2016, at https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/
76/publications/engineerregulations/er_1110-2-240.pdf. 76/publications/engineerregulations/er_1110-2-240.pdf.
91101 USACE and Reclamation follow the Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources USACE and Reclamation follow the Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies (Principles and Guidelines) established in 1983 for planning and evaluating alternatives for Implementation Studies (Principles and Guidelines) established in 1983 for planning and evaluating alternatives for
civil works projects. Larry Oliver et al., civil works projects. Larry Oliver et al., Low-Head Dam Removal for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration in the Corps, ,
2018, 2018, at https://www.nalms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/38-1-3.pdf. Hereinafter, Oliver et al., https://www.nalms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/38-1-3.pdf. Hereinafter, Oliver et al., Corps Dam
Removal. .
92102 For an explanation of this process by USACE, see CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand. If a USACE-managed dam no longer serves its authorized purposes, USACE may conduct a disposition study under If a USACE-managed dam no longer serves its authorized purposes, USACE may conduct a disposition study under
its Section 216 authority to review navigation, flood control, and water supply projects (33 U.S.C. §549a). For its Section 216 authority to review navigation, flood control, and water supply projects (33 U.S.C. §549a). For
example, USACE conducted a disposition study in 2014 for Green River Locks and Dams 3 through 6 and the Barren example, USACE conducted a disposition study in 2014 for Green River Locks and Dams 3 through 6 and the Barren
River Lock and Dam, which were no longer serving their navigation purposes. USACE, River Lock and Dam, which were no longer serving their navigation purposes. USACE, Green and Barren Rivers
Locks and Dams Disposition Feasibility Study, February 2014, , February 2014, at https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/
CWProjects/Green%20and%20Barren%20dispo/Main%20Report.pdf. CWProjects/Green%20and%20Barren%20dispo/Main%20Report.pdf.
~~93 In~~Congressional Research Service 14 Dam Removal: The Federal Role preferred alternative, then it may recommend that Congress authorize removal.103 If Congress authorizes the agency recommendation, Congress also would need to appropriate funds to conduct dam removal, which would be used along with any required cost sharing from a nonfederal partner. For example, if a federal dam were removed under the authority for USACE aquatic ecosystem restoration (33 U.S.C. §2213), then the nonfederal cost share of the dam removal project would be 35%.104 Removal of a congressionally authorized dam has been rare.105 A study for removal of this type of dam would likely only take place if the dam is no longer serving its purpose (e.g., commercial navigation); the dam poses a safety threat; the dam is not competitive for dam safety modification funding; and/or dam removal may provide aquatic ecosystem benefits.106 In 2016, a court order in litigation by nonfederal groups over operations plans for dams in the Columbia River Basin required the federal government to consider as an alternative in its environmental review the possibility of removing four hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake River, WA, to improve fish passage.107 Ultimately, the federal government did not choose dam removal as its preferred alternative, in part because the dams still provide for multiple authorized purposes (e.g., navigation, hydroelectric power).108 However, after mediation between certain parties involved in the ongoing litigation, the parties requested and the court ordered, in February 103 For example, in Section 1315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (WRDA 2016; Title I of P.L. 114-322), Congress Section 1315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (WRDA 2016; Title I of P.L. 114-322), Congress
deauthorized Green River Locks and Dams 3 through 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam, while stipulating the deauthorized Green River Locks and Dams 3 through 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam, while stipulating the
removal of Green River Locks and Dams 5 and 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam. Removal of Green River Locks removal of Green River Locks and Dams 5 and 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam. Removal of Green River Locks
and Dams 5 and 6 and Dams 5 and 6 ~~was completed~~began in 2017 and 2021, respectively. USACE, “Conservation Partners Celebrate Green in 2017 and 2021, respectively. USACE, “Conservation Partners Celebrate Green
River Dam Removal,” September 20, 2021, River Dam Removal,” September 20, 2021, at https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/2781999/https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/2781999/.
~~94 For~~; USACE, “USACE Announces Emergency Removal of Remaining Portions of Green River Lock and Dam 6,” August 29, 2022, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/3143196/usace-announces-emergency-removal-of-remaining-portions-of-green-river-lock-and/. 104 As a specific example, following construction authorization in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 example, following construction authorization in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(P.L. 113-121) for aquatic ecosystem restoration, USACE allocated construction appropriations in USACE’s FY2016 (P.L. 113-121) for aquatic ecosystem restoration, USACE allocated construction appropriations in USACE’s FY2016
work plan to the Marsh Lake, MN, project, which included removal of the Marsh Lake Dam and construction of other work plan to the Marsh Lake, MN, project, which included removal of the Marsh Lake Dam and construction of other
structures. The nonfederal sponsor provided the 35% nonfederal cost share, as required for USACE ecosystem structures. The nonfederal sponsor provided the 35% nonfederal cost share, as required for USACE ecosystem
restoration projects (33 U.S.C. §2213). USACE removed the dam in October 2018 and completed project construction restoration projects (33 U.S.C. §2213). USACE removed the dam in October 2018 and completed project construction
in June 2020. USACE, “Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota,” in June 2020. USACE, “Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota,” at September 25, 2023, https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/
Home/Projects/Article/571148/marsh-lake-ecosystem-restoration-project/. Home/Projects/Article/571148/marsh-lake-ecosystem-restoration-project/.
~~95 For example, the~~105 The American Rivers American Rivers’ Dam Removal Database lists only seven USACE-managed dams and no Dam Removal Database lists only seven USACE-managed dams and no
Reclamation-managed dams removed between 2000 and Reclamation-managed dams removed between 2000 and ~~2020~~2022. American Rivers, “Database.” . American Rivers, “Database.”
96106 For example, USACE has repeatedly considered deauthorizaton and removal of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and For example, USACE has repeatedly considered deauthorizaton and removal of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and
Dam since commercial navigation ceased through the lock, USACE determined the structure was unsafe, and dam Dam since commercial navigation ceased through the lock, USACE determined the structure was unsafe, and dam
~~Congressional Research Service~~

13

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~Recently, a ruling on litigation by nonfederal groups required the federal government to consider~~
~~removing four hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake River, WA, as an alternative in its revision~~
~~of Columbia River Basin dam operations to improve fish passage.97 Ultimately, the federal~~
~~government did not choose dam removal as its preferred alternative, in part because the dams still~~
~~provide for multiple authorized purposes (e.g., navigation, hydroelectric power).98~~
~~At times, Congress has considered prohibiting federal agencies from using appropriations for~~
~~activities related to the removal of federal dams managed by USACE and Reclamation. For~~
~~example, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3144 in 2018 to prevent any structural~~
~~modification, action, study, or engineering plan that may hinder electrical generation from the~~
~~Federal Columbia River Power System or navigation along the Snake River unless authorized by~~
~~Congress, but the Senate did not act on the legislation.99 The House of Representatives also~~
~~passed a provision in H.R. 5895 under Division A, the Energy and Water Development and~~
~~Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, that would have prohibited use of any funds provided~~
~~by Division A to remove any federally owned or operated dam unless the removal was previously~~
~~authorized by Congress. The Senate removed this provision prior to enactment of H.R. 5895.~~
safety modifications did not compete for funding. USACE then identified fish passage construction at the location as a mitigation strategy for impacts to fish species from USACE’s Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. In 2019, the USACE Savannah District Commander approved removal of the lock and dam and construction of a fixed weir, in-stream fish passage, an option authorized by Section 1319 of P.L. 114-322. Stakeholder opposition due to potential changes in incidental benefits currently provided by the lock and dam has resulted in litigation between stakeholders and USACE over USACE’s preferred alternative for the project. USACE Savanah District Website, “SHEP Fish Passage at New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam,” https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Savannah-Harbor-Expansion/SHEP-Fish-Passage/; Steve Byerly and Craig Allison, “Lock and Dam’s Fate in Question after New Ruling from Appeals Court,” News 12 26 Augusta, April 19, 2023, https://www.wrdw.com/2023/04/19/corps-can-tear-down-lock-dam-appeals-court-rules/. 107 National Wildlife Federation (NWF) v. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. May 4, 2016). 108 The EIS noted that breaching (i.e., removing) the lower Snake River dams would require legislative changes to the agencies’ current authorities and mandates, as well as appropriations to carry out such activities. USACE, Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration, Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision, 2020, https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/CRSO/. Congressional Research Service 15 Dam Removal: The Federal Role 2024, a five-year stay of the litigation.109 During that five-year period, the parties have stated an intention to implement a memorandum of understanding that includes commitments by the federal government to support a restoration initiative developed by tribal and state parties.110 Removal of Other Dams Managed by Federal Agencies Federal agencies may remove dams that they manage and that were constructed or acquired Federal agencies may remove dams that they manage and that were constructed or acquired
without specific congressional authorization at the agencies’ discretion, based on agency policies without specific congressional authorization at the agencies’ discretion, based on agency policies
and in adherence to state and federal law.and in adherence to state and federal law.~~100~~111 For example, federal land management agencies may For example, federal land management agencies may
pursue dam removal as an alternative to reduce costs for operation, maintenance, and safety work pursue dam removal as an alternative to reduce costs for operation, maintenance, and safety work
onof dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition and/or to improve fish passage and watershed dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition and/or to improve fish passage and watershed
restoration.restoration.~~101~~112 When evaluating such projects, the agencies determine if the action complies with When evaluating such projects, the agencies determine if the action complies with
their general authorities and is consistent with the planning document governing the management their general authorities and is consistent with the planning document governing the management
of that specific land unit. For example, in assessing dam removal activity in a national forest, FS of that specific land unit. For example, in assessing dam removal activity in a national forest, FS
would determine if dam removal is consistent with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 would determine if dam removal is consistent with the National Forest Management Act of 1976
(P.L. 94-588), in part by meeting standards and guidelines found in the forest’s land management (P.L. 94-588), in part by meeting standards and guidelines found in the forest’s land management
plan.plan.~~102~~ 113 Funding for dam removal activities from federal land management agencies’ Funding for dam removal activities from federal land management agencies’

~~safety modifications did not compete for funding. USACE then identified fish passage construction at the location as a~~
~~mitigation strategy for impacts to fish species from USACE’s Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. In 2019, the~~
~~USACE Savannah District Commander approved removal of the lock and dam and construction of a fixed weir, in-~~
~~stream fish passage, an option authorized by Section 1319 of P.L. 114-322. USACE is awaiting appropriations for the~~
~~work, which has faced stakeholder opposition due to potential changes in incidental benefits currently provided by the~~
~~lock and dam. USACE Savanah District Website, “SHEP Fish Passage at New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam,” at~~
~~https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Savannah-Harbor-Expansion/SHEP-Fish-Passage/.~~
~~97 National Wildlife Federations v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. May 4, 2016).~~
~~98 The EIS noted that breaching (i.e., removing) the lower Snake River dams would require legislative changes to the~~
~~agencies’ current authorities and mandates, as well as appropriations to carry out such activities. USACE, Reclamation,~~
~~Bonneville Power Administration,~~ ~~Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement Record of~~
~~Decision, 2020, at https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/CRSO/.~~
~~99 The lower Snake River dams are part of the Federal Columbia River Power System.~~
~~100~~appropriations may compete with funding needs for other facilities (e.g., roads, buildings). To the extent that federal land management agencies have deferred maintenance needs for dams they manage,114 dam removal as an option to address the deferred maintenance needs could be eligible for deferred maintenance funding provided in discretionary or mandatory appropriations. One such source of 109 Eighth Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. Jan. 20, 2021). Joint Motion to Stay Litigation Through 2028, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. Dec. 14, 2023). 110 The federal government did not commit to removing the dams as part of its commitments, as such an action would require authorization by Congress. However, a key element of the Columbia Basin Restoration Initiative, which the federal government commitments are to advance, is to make investments necessary to enable removal of the lower Snake River dams. Joint Motion to Stay Litigation Through 2028, Ex. A, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. Dec. 14, 2023). 111 For example, according to BLM’s facility maintenance manual, dams that are “no longer functioning as originally For example, according to BLM’s facility maintenance manual, dams that are “no longer functioning as originally
designed, are no longer cost effective to maintain, and do not meet a resource need ... shall be obliterated as soon as designed, are no longer cost effective to maintain, and do not meet a resource need ... shall be obliterated as soon as
funding becomes available.” BLM, funding becomes available.” BLM, Facility Maintenance, MS 9104, April 2014, pg. A-3, , MS 9104, April 2014, pg. A-3, at https://www.blm.gov/sites/https://www.blm.gov/sites/
blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual9104.pdf. blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual9104.pdf. InAmong other projects, in 2021, BLM completed an EA proposing to remove 2021, BLM completed an EA proposing to remove
~~two dam assets~~two dams that breached in recent years; the agency stated that removal would provide long-term savings in the that breached in recent years; the agency stated that removal would provide long-term savings in the
annual and deferred maintenance program by decreasing facility assets (see annual and deferred maintenance program by decreasing facility assets (see “Upper Lone Tree and Double Crossing Upper Lone Tree and Double Crossing
Dam Decommissioning ProjectDam Decommissioning Project at,” September 13, 2021, https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2011409/510). https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2011409/510).
~~101~~112 For example, NPS removed Cascades Dam in Yosemite National Park in 2003 to protect visitors from consequences For example, NPS removed Cascades Dam in Yosemite National Park in 2003 to protect visitors from consequences
of potential dam failure and to facilitate river restoration of the Merced River, a designated wild and scenic river. NPS, of potential dam failure and to facilitate river restoration of the Merced River, a designated wild and scenic river. NPS,
“Cascades Diversion Dam Removal,” “Cascades Diversion Dam Removal,” atJanuary 1, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/dam-removal.htm. https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/dam-removal.htm.
~~102~~113 16 U.S.C. §1604. For example, in the 16 U.S.C. §1604. For example, in the Environmental Assessment Trabuco District Dam Removal Project: Silverado,
~~Congressional Research Service~~

14

~~link to page 13 link to page 13~~ ~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~appropriations may compete with funding needs for other facilities (e.g., roads, buildings). To the~~
~~extent that federal land management agencies have deferred maintenance needs for dams they~~
~~manage,103 dam removal (as an option to address the deferred maintenance needs) could be~~
~~eligible for deferred maintenance funding provided in discretionary or mandatory appropriations.~~
~~One such source of~~ Holy Jim, and San Juan Creeks, FS stated that the environmental analysis complied with the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan, which was completed in 2006. FS, “Trabuco District Dam Removal Project,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41140. 114 Deferred maintenance is defined as maintenance that was not performed as needed or scheduled and was put off to a future time. See, for example, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, “Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 42: Deferred Maintenance and Repairs: Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 6, 14, 29 and 32,” April 25, 2012, p. 5, http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/original_sffas_42.pdf. Congressional Research Service 16 link to page 14 link to page 14 Dam Removal: The Federal Role funding would be mandatory funds from the National Parks and Public Land funding would be mandatory funds from the National Parks and Public Land
Legacy Restoration Fund established by the Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152).Legacy Restoration Fund established by the Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152).~~104~~
~~BIA~~115 Dams on Indian Lands The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for all dams on Indian lands, in accordance with the Indian Dams Safety Act of is responsible for all dams on Indian lands, in accordance with the Indian Dams Safety Act of
1994, as amended (IDSA; P.L. 103-302; 25 U.S.C. §§3801 et seq.).1994, as amended (IDSA; P.L. 103-302; 25 U.S.C. §§3801 et seq.).~~105~~ BIA manages 126 dams listed in the National Inventory of Dams (NID) on Indian lands, in addition to unclassified dams not listed in the NID. (The agency reports that it is not aware of all low-hazard dams under its jurisdiction.) BIA has no policies and BIA has no policies and
procedures specific to dam removal, likely because the IDSA does not authorize BIA to conduct procedures specific to dam removal, likely because the IDSA does not authorize BIA to conduct
dam removal. dam removal. The IDSA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program within BIA to IDSA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program within BIA to
maintain dams identified maintain dams identified under ISDA “in a satisfactory condition on a long-term basis,” which could be interpreted as including dam removal as a maintenance option to address unsatisfactory conditions (25 U.S.C. §3803(a)). In testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2016, the BIA Director stated that the Tribal Safety of Dams Committee (authorized by 5 U.S.C. §3805) could consider recommendations addressing “the removal of dams in order to eliminate the safety hazards posed by deteriorating dams.” Sources: DOI, Reports Required by The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, Title III, Subtitle A—Indian Dams Safety Subtitle B—Irrigation, April 15, 2017, Appendix A1. Testimony of BIA Director Michael Black, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, S. 2205, S. 2421, S. 2564, and S. 2717, hearing, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., April 13, 2016, S. Hrg. 114-326. Restricting Funding for Federal Dam Removal At times, Congress has considered prohibiting federal agencies from using appropriations for activities related to the removal of certain federal dams. For example, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3144 (115th Congress) in 2018 to prevent any structural modification, action, study, or engineering plan that might have hindered electrical generation from the Federal Columbia River Power System or navigation along the Snake River unless authorized by Congress.116 The House of Representatives also passed a provision in H.R. 5895 (115th Congress) under Division A, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, that would have prohibited use of any funds provided by Division A to remove any federally owned or operated dam unless the removal was previously authorized by Congress. The Senate removed this provision prior to enactment of H.R. 5895. In 2021, the IIJA provided supplemental appropriations to certain agencies for dam removal projects that specifically excluded federal hydropower dams.117 Federal Involvement in Nonfederal Dam Removal Some federal agencies are involved in removal of nonfederal dams. This involvement may consist of voluntary coordination, regulatory actions (including those discussed under “Statutory and Regulatory Requirements,” above), and activities performed at the specific direction of Congress. Federal agencies also may provide technical and financial assistance for dam removal activities under more general authorities, such as those to address dam safety, flood risks, fish and wildlife passage, and watershed restoration. 115~~under ISDA “in a satisfactory condition on a long-term basis.”106~~
~~Federal Involvement in Nonfederal Dam Removal~~
~~Some federal agencies are involved in removal of nonfederal dams. This involvement may consist~~
~~of voluntary coordination, regulatory actions (including those discussed in the~~ ~~“Statutory and~~
~~Regulatory Requirements” section), or activities performed at the specific direction of Congress.~~
~~Federal agencies also may provide technical and financial assistance for dam removal activities~~
~~under more general authorities, such as those to address dam safety, flood risks, fish and wildlife~~
~~passage, and watershed restoration.~~
~~Nonfederal Dams on Federal Land~~
~~There are over 5,000 nonfederal dams on federal land, mostly located on Bureau of Land~~
~~Management and FS land.107 Most federal agencies do not have authorities for regulating these~~
~~dams, though some may have policies outlining operating responsibilities established through~~
~~agreements.108 For example, FS may allow nonfederal entities to use National Forest System~~

Holy Jim, and San Juan Creeks, FS stated that the environmental analysis complied with the Cleveland National Forest
~~Land Management Plan, which was completed in 2006. FS, “Trabuco District Dam Removal Project,” at~~
~~https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41140.~~
~~103 Deferred maintenance is defined as maintenance that was not performed as needed or scheduled and was put off to a~~
~~future time. See, for example, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, “Statement of Federal Financial~~
~~Accounting Standards 42: Deferred Maintenance and Repairs: Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting~~
~~Standards 6, 14, 29 and 32,” April 25, 2012, p. 5, at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/original_sffas_42.pdf.~~
~~104~~ For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11636, For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11636, The Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152), by Carol , by Carol
Hardy Vincent, Laura B. Comay, and Bill Heniff Jr. Hardy Vincent, Laura B. Comay, and Bill Heniff Jr. ~~For~~As an example, for FY2021, CRS identified that the National Parks and Public FY2021, CRS identified that the National Parks and Public
Land Legacy Restoration Fund supported at least two dam removal projects managed by BLM (“Joint Explanatory Land Legacy Restoration Fund supported at least two dam removal projects managed by BLM (“Joint Explanatory
statement for P.L. 116-260, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,” statement for P.L. 116-260, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,” Congressional Record, December , December 21, 2020). 116 The previously mentioned lower Snake River dams are part of the Federal Columbia River Power System. 117 Such appropriations with this prohibition were provided to FS, FWS, NOAA, and USACE. The FWS and NOAA appropriations also required written consent of the dam owner for dam removal projects, if ownership was established. Congressional Research Service 17 link to page 21 link to page 21 Dam Removal: The Federal Role Nonfederal Dams on Federal Land The NID, as updated January 2, 2024, reports there are 1,914 nonfederal dams on federal lands.118 These dams are mostly located on Bureau of Land Management and FS land. Except for nonfederal hydropower projects on federal lands, Congress has not passed legislation providing most federal agencies with authorities for specifically regulating nonfederal dams, though some agencies may have policies outlining operating responsibilities established through agreements.119 For example, FS may allow nonfederal entities to use National Forest System ~~21, 2020).~~
~~105 BIA manages 126 NID dams on Indian lands, in addition to unclassified dams not in the NID. The agency reports~~
~~that it is not aware of all low-hazard dams under its jurisdiction. 2018 NID; Department of the Interior,~~ ~~Reports~~
~~Required by: The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, Title III, Subtitle A—Indian~~
~~Dam s Safety Subtitle B—Irrigation, April 15, 2017, Appendix A1.~~
~~106 25 U.S.C. §3803(a). In testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2016, the BIA Director stated~~
~~that the Tribal Safety of Dams Committee (authorized by 5 U.S.C. §3805) could consider recommendations addressing~~
~~“the removal of dams in order to eliminate the safety hazards posed by deteriorating dams.” Testimony of BIA Director~~
~~Michael Black, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, S. 2205, S. 2421, S. 2564, and S. 2717, hearing,~~
~~114th Cong., 2nd sess., April 13, 2016, S.Hrg. 114-326.~~
~~107 2018 NID; FEMA,~~ ~~The National Dam Safety Program, Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years~~
~~2014–2015, FEMA P-1067, 2016, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-~~
~~report-2014-2015.pdf.~~
~~108For BLM, see 43 C.F.R. Part 2800; for FWS, see 361 FW 2.14. Congress has enacted specific conditions related to~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

15

~~link to page 19 link to page 19~~ ~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

lands for dams through an agreement called a lands for dams through an agreement called a special use authorization, which establishes the , which establishes the
terms under which the authorized activity must be conductedterms under which the authorized activity must be conducted ~~(e.g., maintenance and dam safety~~
~~measures).109~~.120 These agreements may end in various ways, such as through planned termination, These agreements may end in various ways, such as through planned termination,
voluntary termination by the holder, or agency termination or revocation due to noncompliance voluntary termination by the holder, or agency termination or revocation due to noncompliance
with the agreement’s terms. Generally, upon agreement termination, the holder is responsible for with the agreement’s terms. Generally, upon agreement termination, the holder is responsible for
removing improvements, including dams. If improvements have not been removed within the removing improvements, including dams. If improvements have not been removed within the
time allowed, they become government property and are considered agency-managed dams. time allowed, they become government property and are considered agency-managed dams.
Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Projects Under the Federal Power Act
The FPA authorizes FERC to license new nonfederal hydropower projects, relicense existing The FPA authorizes FERC to license new nonfederal hydropower projects, relicense existing
projects, and provide oversight for all ongoing nonfederal projects.projects, and provide oversight for all ongoing nonfederal projects.~~110~~121 Licenses, which establish Licenses, which establish
operating parameters for nonfederal hydropower projects, typically are issued for 30-50 years.operating parameters for nonfederal hydropower projects, typically are issued for 30-50 years.~~111~~122
As part of nonfederal hydropower projects, FERC has jurisdiction over more than 2,500 dams As part of nonfederal hydropower projects, FERC has jurisdiction over more than 2,500 dams
that together generate approximately 55,500 megawatts of hydropower capacity.that together generate approximately 55,500 megawatts of hydropower capacity.~~112 In September~~
~~2021~~123 In December 2023, FERC reported that , FERC reported that ~~178~~112 licensed projects ( licensed projects (1711% of the total licensed projects in % of the total licensed projects in ~~2021~~2023) are ) are
set to expire between set to expire between ~~FY2022 and FY2026.113~~FY2024 and FY2028.124 The relicensing process provides an opportunity to The relicensing process provides an opportunity to
periodically reassess the relative benefits and impacts of hydropower projects.periodically reassess the relative benefits and impacts of hydropower projects.~~114~~
A 125 A hydropower project must adhere to several requirements to be relicensed. In the FPA, Congress gave certain project must adhere to several requirements to be relicensed. In the FPA, Congress gave certain
conditioning and recommendation authorities to federal land management and conditioning and recommendation authorities to federal land management and ~~resource agencies;~~
~~BIA, representing Indian tribes; and state agencies. These authorities included the following:115~~
~~ Section 4(e) (16 U.S.C. §797) allows FERC to issue licenses for projects located~~
~~on public lands and reservations of the United States, only after a finding that the~~
~~license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purposes for which the~~
~~reservation was established. Any license issued within a federal reservation is~~

118 January 2, 2024, NID. 119 For BLM, see 43 C.F.R. Part 2800; for FWS, see 361 FW 2.14. Congress has enacted specific conditions related to nonfederal hydropower projects on federal lands (see nonfederal hydropower projects on federal lands (see herein “Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Projects Under the
Federal Power Act”). ).
~~109~~120 Land management agencies generally are responsible for monitoring whether the holders of special use Land management agencies generally are responsible for monitoring whether the holders of special use
authorizations comply with these requirements. authorizations comply with these requirements.
~~110~~121 For more information, see section on “Nonfederal Hydropower” in CRS Report R42579, For more information, see section on “Nonfederal Hydropower” in CRS Report R42579, Hydropower: Federal and
Nonfederal Investment, by Kelsi Bracmort, Adam Vann, and Charles V. Stern; CRS In Focus IF11411, , by Kelsi Bracmort, Adam Vann, and Charles V. Stern; CRS In Focus IF11411, The Legal
Framework of the Federal Power Act, by Adam Vann; and FERC, , by Adam Vann; and FERC, Hydropower Primer: A Handbook of Hydropower
Basics, 2017, , 2017, at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/hydropower-primer.pdf (hereinafter, FERC, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/hydropower-primer.pdf (hereinafter, FERC,
Hydropower Primer). ).
~~111~~122 FERC has developed three hydropower licensing processes: the Traditional Licensing Process, the Alternative FERC has developed three hydropower licensing processes: the Traditional Licensing Process, the Alternative
Licensing Process, and the Integrated Licensing Process, which is the default process. Licensing Process, and the Integrated Licensing Process, which is the default process. In general, most dams are built for a design life of 50 years. FERC, FERC, Hydropower Primer. .
~~112~~123 FERC, FERC, Hydropower Primer. .
~~113~~124 FERC, “Licensing, Complete List of Active Licenses,” FERC, “Licensing, Complete List of Active Licenses,” at https://www.ferc.gov/licensing, https://www.ferc.gov/licensing, ~~accessed September 23,~~
~~2021.~~ updated December 2023. FERC provides relicensing data that include the number of projects with license applications expected to be filed FERC provides relicensing data that include the number of projects with license applications expected to be filed
for each fiscal year from for each fiscal year from ~~FY2019~~FY2024 through through ~~FY2033~~FY2038. See FERC, “Licensing, Expected Relicense Projects . See FERC, “Licensing, Expected Relicense Projects ~~FY2019-~~
~~FY2033,” at~~ FY2024-FY2038,” https://www.ferc.gov/licensing. https://www.ferc.gov/licensing.
~~114~~ 125 Jeffrey J. Opperman et al., “The Penobscot River, Maine, USA: A Basin-Scale Approach to Balancing Power Jeffrey J. Opperman et al., “The Penobscot River, Maine, USA: A Basin-Scale Approach to Balancing Power
Generation and Ecosystem Restoration,” Generation and Ecosystem Restoration,” Ecology and Society, vol. 16, no. 3 (2011). Hereinafter, Opperman et al., , vol. 16, no. 3 (2011). Hereinafter, Opperman et al.,
“Penobscot River.” “Penobscot River.”
~~115 See Sections 4(e), 10(a), 10(j), and 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c); and FERC et al.,~~
~~Interagency Task Force Report on Agency Recommendations, Conditions, and Prescriptions Under Part I of the~~
~~Federal Power Act, December 2000, at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/~~
~~AgencyRecommendations%2CConditions%2CandPrescriptionsunderPartIoftheFederalPowerAct.pdf.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

16

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

Congressional Research Service 18 Dam Removal: The Federal Role resource agencies; BIA, representing Indian tribes; and state agencies. These authorities include the following:126 • Section 4(e) (16 U.S.C. §797) allows FERC to issue licenses for projects located on public lands and reservations of the United States, only after a finding that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purposes for which the reservation was established. Any license issued within a federal reservation is also subject to mandatory terms and conditions issued by the federal agency also subject to mandatory terms and conditions issued by the federal agency
managing that reservation. managing that reservation.
• Section 10(a) (16 U.S.C. §803) requires FERC to give consideration to purposes Section 10(a) (16 U.S.C. §803) requires FERC to give consideration to purposes
other than power generation, including the environmental and recreational other than power generation, including the environmental and recreational
concerns listed in Section 4(e), and states that any project licensed must be, in concerns listed in Section 4(e), and states that any project licensed must be, in
FERC’s judgment, best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or FERC’s judgment, best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or
developing a waterwaydeveloping a waterway~~(s)~~ or waterways for the benefit of multiple public uses. for the benefit of multiple public uses.
• Section 10(j) (16 U.S.C. §803) requires any license issued to include conditions Section 10(j) (16 U.S.C. §803) requires any license issued to include conditions
to protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish- and wildlife-related habitat to protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish- and wildlife-related habitat
based on recommendations from federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. based on recommendations from federal and state fish and wildlife agencies.
• Section 18 (16 U.S.C. §811) states that FERC must require the construction, Section 18 (16 U.S.C. §811) states that FERC must require the construction,
operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways (e.g., fish ladders) as operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways (e.g., fish ladders) as
may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Commerce.Commerce.~~116~~127
FERC can make various decisions once a relicense application has been filed. Following the FERC can make various decisions once a relicense application has been filed. Following the
filing of a license application, filing of a license application, relevant agencies submit their recommendations and conditions. FERC agencies submit their recommendations and conditions. FERC
considers the agencies’ recommendations and incorporates the requirements into its final considers the agencies’ recommendations and incorporates the requirements into its final NEPA document, such as an EA or EIS~~NEPA~~
~~document (either an EA or an EIS)~~. FERC then rules to grant the license with operating . FERC then rules to grant the license with operating
conditions or to deny the license; denial of the license could trigger decommissioning of the conditions or to deny the license; denial of the license could trigger decommissioning of the
project and removal of project and removal of ~~the project’s~~its dam(s). dam(s).~~117~~128 FERC also has coordinated the licensing of several FERC also has coordinated the licensing of several
projects in a watershed with agreement among parties to remove some dams in the watershed for projects in a watershed with agreement among parties to remove some dams in the watershed for
restoration purposes.restoration purposes.~~118~~
~~In addition, FERC may approve or deny the surrender of a project license. A project licensee may~~
~~choose to surrender a license for various reasons, such as that the project is no longer economical~~
~~(e.g., due to mandatory conditions to construct fish passage or dam safety repairs).119 Once a~~
~~licensee files an application to surrender, FERC reviews the application and issues an order~~
~~approving or denying the request for surrender.120 Licenses may be surrendered only after~~

~~116~~129 126 See Sections 4(e), 10(a), 10(j), and 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c); and FERC et al., Interagency Task Force Report on Agency Recommendations, Conditions, and Prescriptions Under Part I of the Federal Power Act, December 2000, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/AgencyRecommendations%2CConditions%2CandPrescriptionsunderPartIoftheFederalPowerAct.pdf. 127 These prescriptions are mandatory and must be included in the license. The licensee, however, may appeal these These prescriptions are mandatory and must be included in the license. The licensee, however, may appeal these
prescriptions prescriptions ~~with~~to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior. FERC, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior. FERC, Hydropower Primer. .
~~117~~128 In 1995, FERC issued a policy statement concluding that it had the authority as part of a relicensing proceeding to In 1995, FERC issued a policy statement concluding that it had the authority as part of a relicensing proceeding to
deny a relicense application and to order a dam to be removed if FERC determines such an action is in the public deny a relicense application and to order a dam to be removed if FERC determines such an action is in the public
interest. FERC, “Project Decommissioning at Relicensing: Policy Statement,” 60 interest. FERC, “Project Decommissioning at Relicensing: Policy Statement,” 60 Federal Register 339, January 4, 339, January 4,
1995. For example, FERC exercised this dam removal authority in a 1997 order requiring removal of the Edwards Dam 1995. For example, FERC exercised this dam removal authority in a 1997 order requiring removal of the Edwards Dam
on the Kennebec River in Maine (Edwards Mfg. Co., 81 FERC 61,225 (1997)). Natural Resources Council of Maine, on the Kennebec River in Maine (Edwards Mfg. Co., 81 FERC 61,225 (1997)). Natural Resources Council of Maine,
“A Brief History of Edwards Dam,” “A Brief History of Edwards Dam,” at https://www.nrcm.org/programs/waters/kennebec-restoration/history-edwards-https://www.nrcm.org/programs/waters/kennebec-restoration/history-edwards-
dam/. dam/.
~~118~~129 In 2004, parties negotiating the relicensing of hydropower projects in the Penobscot River watershed filed with In 2004, parties negotiating the relicensing of hydropower projects in the Penobscot River watershed filed with
FERC the Lower Penobscot River Comprehensive Settlement Accord, a multiparty legal agreement designed to FERC the Lower Penobscot River Comprehensive Settlement Accord, a multiparty legal agreement designed to
reconfigure hydropower production on the lower Penobscot system to both restore migratory fish populations (through reconfigure hydropower production on the lower Penobscot system to both restore migratory fish populations (through
dam removal and by installing fish passages at certain dams) and maintain hydropower production under new licenses dam removal and by installing fish passages at certain dams) and maintain hydropower production under new licenses
at selected PPL Corporation dams. The parties involved in negotiations included the PPL Corporation, Penobscot at selected PPL Corporation dams. The parties involved in negotiations included the PPL Corporation, Penobscot
Indian Nation, State of Maine, Indian Nation, State of Maine, ~~Department of the Interior~~DOI (BIA, FWS, NPS), and five nonprofit conservation (BIA, FWS, NPS), and five nonprofit conservation
organizations. Opperman et al., “Penobscot River”; 69 organizations. Opperman et al., “Penobscot River”; 69 Federal Register 41799. 41799.
~~119 Where~~Congressional Research Service 19 link to page 30 Dam Removal: The Federal Role In addition, FERC may approve or deny the surrender of a project license. A project licensee may choose to surrender a license for various reasons, such as that the project is no longer economical (e.g., due to mandatory conditions to construct fish passage or dam safety repairs).130 Once a licensee files an application to surrender, FERC reviews the application and issues an order approving or denying the request for surrender.131 FERC may prescribe conditions for disposing of project works and restoring project lands that FERC and relevant federal and state fish and wildlife agencies may require.132 Licenses may be surrendered only after fulfilling any obligations under the license order. Although some surrenders of nonfederal hydropower projects to date have included dam removal as part of the process, not all include dam removal as some licensees leave dams in place.133 In certain cases, FERC can terminate a license for specific reasons.134 Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal Congress has authorized and funded various programs that may address dam safety, flood risks, fish passage, and watershed restoration; these programs may include dam removal, generally for nonfederal dams, as an eligible activity. For example, in 2020, Congress enacted a new authority for ecosystem restoration under Reclamation that may include funding the design, study, and construction to remove barriers to fish passage.135 As another example, in 2021, the IIJA included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal (see the gray box, below).136 This report’s Appendix includes a table that provides information on selected federal assistance (e.g., grants, loan programs) for nonfederal dam removal that spans multiple departments and agencies (e.g., Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, and Homeland 130Where the entity responsible for a project has indicated its intent to abandon the project but has not filed a surrender the entity responsible for a project has indicated its intent to abandon the project but has not filed a surrender
application (e.g., allowing a project to be in a state of disrepair for a long period, with no plan to put it back in application (e.g., allowing a project to be in a state of disrepair for a long period, with no plan to put it back in
operation in the foreseeable future), FERC may issue an order terminating a license or exemption by implied surrender. operation in the foreseeable future), FERC may issue an order terminating a license or exemption by implied surrender.
FERC, FERC, Hydropower Primer. .
~~120~~131 A licensee must prepare an application for a license surrender as specified in 18 C.F.R. §6.1, which includes the A licensee must prepare an application for a license surrender as specified in 18 C.F.R. §6.1, which includes the
reason for surrendering the license and a copy of the license and all amendments associated with the project. reason for surrendering the license and a copy of the license and all amendments associated with the project. If
~~Congressional Research Service~~

17

~~link to page 28~~ ~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~fulfilling any obligations under the license order that FERC may prescribe and any conditions for~~
~~disposing of project works and restoring project lands that FERC and relevant federal and state~~
~~fish and wildlife agencies may require.~~
~~Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal~~
~~Congress has authorized and funded various programs that may address dam safety, flood risks,~~
~~fish passage, and watershed restoration; these programs may include dam removal as an eligible~~
~~activity. For example, in 2020, Congress enacted a new authority for ecosystem restoration under~~
~~Reclamation that may include funding the design, study, and construction to remove fish passage~~
~~barriers.121 This report’s Appendix includes a table that provides information on selected federal~~
~~assistance (e.g., grants, loan programs) for nonfederal dam removal that spans multiple~~
~~departments and agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]; Departments of~~
~~Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, and Homeland Security~~For instance, see “Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Project (FERC Project No. 77) Surrender Application and Decommissioning Plan Stakeholder Website,” 2023, https://www.pottervalleysurrenderproceeding.com/. If appropriate, a NEPA document is prepared before an order is issued. FERC, “How to Surrender a License or Exemption,” https://www.ferc.gov/administration-and-compliance/how-surrender-license-or-exemption. 132 For instance, see FERC’s order for modifying and approving surrender of license and removal of Klamath Hydroelectric Project facilities (FERC, H-1 P-2082-063, November 17, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/media/h-1-p-2082-063). 133 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Hydropower Relicensing and License Surrender Data and Metadata, 2023, https://hydrosource.ornl.gov/dataset/us-hydropower-relicensing-and-license-surrender-data-and-metadata-2023. Out of the 51 hydropower projects listed as having received FERC approval for surrender through 2022, 16 of these included dam removal. For example, see the case history of the Burnham Creek Hydroelectric Project, WA in which the licensee proposed to leave the project “in place” in its current condition, with no ground-disturbing work, and without removing the dam and other facilities. No entity filed an objection to the proposed surrender and FERC issued the surrender without requiring dam removal. Todd Griset, “FERC License Surrender with Facilities in Place,” January 6, 2018, https://casetext.com/analysis/ferc-license-surrender-with-facilities-in-place. 134 Reasons may include if the licensee fails to begin construction of the project within the prescribed time (18 CFR §6.3); if the licensee fails to maintain and operate the project (18 CFR §6.4); or if the licensee fails to comply with the terms and conditions in the license and FERC has exhausted other avenues for bringing the licensee back into compliance with its license. 135 Section 1109, Title XI, Division FF of P.L. 116-260. 136 In addition, P.L. 117-169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act, provided funding to federal agencies for restoration activities. Federal agencies could potentially fund dam removal activities with certain funding from the act. Congressional Research Service 20 Dam Removal: The Federal Role Security; Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]). Some of these agencies also ). Some of these agencies also
may provide technical assistance specific to their expertise to nonfederal entities interested in may provide technical assistance specific to their expertise to nonfederal entities interested in
pursuing dam removal. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s pursuing dam removal. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA’s) Community-Based Restoration Program provides technical assistance to owners and (NOAA’s) Community-Based Restoration Program provides technical assistance to owners and
stakeholders for various phases of a dam removal project: feasibility study, permitting and stakeholders for various phases of a dam removal project: feasibility study, permitting and
environmental compliance, project design, implementation, and monitoring.environmental compliance, project design, implementation, and monitoring.~~122~~137 Other programs Other programs
are available through public-private partnership organizations, such as the National Fish and are available through public-private partnership organizations, such as the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation’s Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program.Wildlife Foundation’s Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program.~~123~~
~~In addition, dam removal activities may receive financial assistance from payments associated~~
~~with natural resource damages.124 When a chemical or oil spill occurs, responsible parties may be~~
~~liable for the cost of removal and remedial actions, as well as for natural resource damages.125~~
~~Responsible parties may be liable for natural resource damages under one or more federal laws,~~
~~particularly the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq.) and the Comprehensive~~
~~Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. §§9601~~
~~et seq.). Federal agencies may act as trustees for the payments used for restoration efforts. In~~
~~some cases, payments for natural resource damages have supported dam removals as part of~~
~~restorative actions to compensate for damages.126 For example, officials from NOAA, FWS, and~~
~~Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection designated dam removal~~
~~projects as part of a series of Housatonic River watershed projects funded by a 1999 legal~~
~~settlement involving natural resource damages.127~~

~~appropriate, a NEPA document is prepared before an order is issued. FERC, “How to Surrender a License or~~
~~Exemption,” at https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/hydropower/administration-and-compliance/how-surrender-~~
~~license-or-exemption.~~
~~121 Section 1109, Title XI, Division FF of P.L. 116-260.~~
~~122 NOAA Fisheries, “Providing Technical Support for Habitat Restoration Efforts,” at~~ 138 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Nonfederal Dam Removal On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), an omnibus authorization and appropriations act, was signed into law. The IIJA included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal. Section 40804 authorized a new $80 mil ion col aborative, landscape-scale restoration program for FY2022 through FY2026. Administered by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the program’s aim is to restore water quality or fish passage. Under the program, the Secretaries are to solicit proposals for up to $5 mil ion in funding for five-year projects to restore fish passage or water quality on federal and nonfederal land. Section 40901 also authorized $250 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the design, study, and construction of aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in accordance with 33 U.S.C. §2330c, which may include removing barriers to fish passage. Division J of the IIJA includes emergency appropriations that may fund dam removal, such as the fol owing: • $250 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026, as authorized in Section 40901, for Reclamation to design, study, and construct aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects, which may include removing barriers to fish passage. • $585 for FY2022 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s High Hazard Dam Mitigation Grant Program (33 U.S.C. §467f–2), of which $75 mil ion is for the removal of nonfederal dams. • $400 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Community-Based Restoration Program (16 U.S.C. §1891a) to restore fish passage by removing in-stream barriers and providing technical assistance. The provision also provides that up to 15% of this funding is to be reserved for projects pursued by Indian tribes or partnerships with Indian tribes. • $465 mil ion for FY2022 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) Continuing Authorizations Programs (CAPs). Of that amount, $115 mil ion is for Section 206 CAP activities (33 U.S.C. §2330) to restore fish and wildlife passage by removing in-stream barriers and providing technical assistance to nonfederal entities carrying out such activities. The provision directs USACE to execute these projects at ful federal expense (instead of the typical 35% nonfederal cost share) and without a federal cost limit (normally limited to $10 mil ion). • $64 mil ion for FY2022 to support credit assistance and $11 mil ion for FY2022 for program administration for the USACE Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program account, which funds the agency’s Corps Water Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP). Through CWIFP, USACE provides credit assistance—direct loans or loan guarantees—to specified eligible nonfederal entities for their water resource projects. IIJA appropriations limit CWIFP to nonfederal dam safety projects; USACE identifies dam removal as an eligible dam safety project. • $200 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Fish Passage Program to restore fish and wildlife passage by removing in-stream barriers and providing technical assistance. • $4.0 bil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the U.S. Forest Service (FS) to carry out activities authorized in Sections 40803 and 40804, and $905 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the Secretary of the Interior to carry out activities authorized in Section 40804. Sections 40803 and 40804 authorize various forest management and ecosystem restoration activities on federal and nonfederal land. As described above, this 137 NOAA Fisheries, “Providing Technical Support for Habitat Restoration Efforts,” January 20, 2022, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/habitat-conservation/providing-technical-support-habitat-restoration-efforts. national/habitat-conservation/providing-technical-support-habitat-restoration-efforts.
~~123~~138 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, “Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program,” National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, “Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program,” at
https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-program. https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-program.
~~124 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal.~~
~~125 For more information, see CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework,~~
~~by David M. Bearden and Jonathan L. Ramseur.~~
~~126 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal.~~
~~127 NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, “$2 Million in Aquatic Restoration Projects Proposed for Polluted~~
~~Housatonic River in Connecticut,” at https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/2-million-aquatic-restoration-~~
~~projects-proposed-polluted-housatonic-river-connecticut.html.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

18

~~link to page 13 link to page 13~~ ~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

Congressional Research Service 21 link to page 14 link to page 14 Dam Removal: The Federal Role includes the col aborative, landscape-scale restoration program to restore water quality or fish passage authorized in Section 40804. Notes: Some of the provisions above specify assistance for nonfederal dam removal. Other provisions do not specify eligibility based on dam ownership. Agencies that implement these provisions for dam removal are likely to assist most or exclusively with nonfederal dam removal. Not listed above is an IIJA appropriations provision specific to federal dam removal: $10 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for FS’s Capital Improvement and Maintenance account for the removal of non-hydropower federal dams and for providing dam removal technical assistance. Natural Resource Damages Financial Assistance In addition, dam removal activities may receive financial assistance from payments associated with natural resource damages.139 When a chemical or oil spill occurs, responsible parties may be liable for the cost of removal and remedial actions, as well as for natural resource damages.140 Responsible parties may be liable for natural resource damages under one or more federal laws, particularly the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq.) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. §§9601 et seq.). Federal agencies may act as trustees for the payments used for restoration efforts. In some cases, payments for natural resource damages have supported dam removals as part of restorative actions to compensate for damages.141 For example, officials from NOAA, FWS, and Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection designated dam removal projects as part of a series of Housatonic River watershed projects funded by a 1999 legal settlement involving natural resource damages.142 In addition to liability for natural resource damages, parties responsible for chemical or oil spills In addition to liability for natural resource damages, parties responsible for chemical or oil spills
may be subject to civil penalties for violations under CERCLA may be subject to civil penalties for violations under CERCLA orand CWA. Enforcement actions CWA. Enforcement actions
involving these violations may include involving these violations may include supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), which are (SEPs), which are
projects that provide benefits that a party may voluntarily agree to undertake in exchange for projects that provide benefits that a party may voluntarily agree to undertake in exchange for
mitigation of penalties.mitigation of penalties.~~128~~143 EPA has stated that in certain circumstances, dam removal projects EPA has stated that in certain circumstances, dam removal projects
have the potential to meet the conditions for SEPs.have the potential to meet the conditions for SEPs.~~129~~144 Mitigation Credit145
Another potential incentive for dam removal in certain scenarios may be the opportunity for the Another potential incentive for dam removal in certain scenarios may be the opportunity for the
project proponent to receive mitigation credit for the project.project proponent to receive mitigation credit for the project.~~130~~146 Under CWA Section 404 and Under CWA Section 404 and
RHA Sections 9 and 10, USACE has authority to issue permits (see RHA Sections 9 and 10, USACE has authority to issue permits (see “Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements”,” above). USACE may require these permits to include compensatory mitigation to 139 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal. 140 For more information, see CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework, by David M. Bearden and Jonathan L. Ramseur. 141 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal. 142 NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, “$2 Million in Aquatic Restoration Projects Proposed for Polluted Housatonic River in Connecticut,” February 22, 2013, https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/2-million-aquatic-restoration-projects-proposed-polluted-housatonic-river-connecticut.html. 143 EPA, “Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs),” January 26, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/supplemental-environmental-projects-seps. 144 EPA, “Frequent Questions.” 145 This section was written by Laura Gatz, Specialist in Environmental Policy. 146 The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Markets and Stream Barrier Removal, 2017, https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/2017_Stream_Barrier_Removal_and_Mitigation_Report.pdf. Congressional Research Service 22 link to page 21 link to page 21 Dam Removal: The Federal Role ~~). USACE may require these permits to include compensatory mitigation to~~ offset offset
any unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States that occur as a result of the permitted any unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States that occur as a result of the permitted
activity. activity. Compensatory mitigation refers to the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and refers to the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and~~/or~~, in , in
certain circumstances, preservation of wetlands, streams, or other aquatic resources for the certain circumstances, preservation of wetlands, streams, or other aquatic resources for the
purpose of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts. According to USACE guidance, “the removal purpose of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts. According to USACE guidance, “the removal
of obsolete dams and other obsolete in-stream structures can be an effective approach to restoring of obsolete dams and other obsolete in-stream structures can be an effective approach to restoring
river and stream structure, functions, and dynamics.”river and stream structure, functions, and dynamics.”~~131~~147 The guidance further explains that these The guidance further explains that these
restoration activities may be performed by mitigation banks and in lieu fee programs to generate restoration activities may be performed by mitigation banks and in lieu fee programs to generate
mitigation credits, which can be sold or transferred to permittees to fulfill compensatory mitigation credits, which can be sold or transferred to permittees to fulfill compensatory
mitigation requirements. The activities also can be conducted as permittee-responsible mitigation. mitigation requirements. The activities also can be conducted as permittee-responsible mitigation.
Whether mitigation credits may be considered for dam removal depends on the nature of the Whether mitigation credits may be considered for dam removal depends on the nature of the
specific project and is subject to review by specific project and is subject to review by ~~the~~ USACE and other applicable federal and state USACE and other applicable federal and state
agencies. agencies.
Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal
Although there is no Although there is no general underlying statutory authority for federal involvement in nonfederal dam underlying statutory authority for federal involvement in nonfederal dam
removal, Congress has authorized federal involvement in some individual dam removal, Congress has authorized federal involvement in some individual dam ~~removals~~removal projects when it when it
has found a compelling reason to do sofound a compelling reason to do so~~, likely due to a federal nexus (e.g.,~~. These reasons include a federal nexus, such as proximity to federal land proximity to federal land
or project, tribal responsibilities, listed speciesor project, tribal responsibilities, listed species), and possibly others. The “Case Histories” box. The “Case Histories” box below provides an example of provides an example of
when Congress directed federal involvement in nonfederal dam removalwhen Congress directed federal involvement in nonfederal dam removal; and an example of when and an example of when
Congress initially was involved in dam removal studiesCongress initially was involved in dam removal studies, but ultimately did not authorize federal but ultimately did not authorize federal
~~involvement for removal. These examples also represent large and complex dam removal~~
~~projects. Congress provided $325 million for restoration of the Elwha River, which included the~~
~~largest dam removal projects ever executed in the United States at the time.132 Removal of four~~
~~Klamath River dams also would be a massive project costing nearly $450 million.133~~

~~128 EPA, “Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs),” at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/supplemental-~~
~~environmental-projects-seps.~~
~~129 EPA, “Frequent Questions.”~~
~~130 This section was written by Laura Gatz, Analyst in Environmental Policy. The Nature Conservancy,~~ ~~Environmental~~
~~Markets and Stream Barrier Removal, 2017, at https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/~~
~~2017_Stream_Barrier_Removal_and_Mitigation_Report.pdf.~~
~~131 USACE, Regulatory Guidance Letter 18-01, September 25, 2018, at https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/~~
~~docs/regulatory/regs/RGL-18-01-Determination-of-Compensatory-Mitigation-Credits-for-Dams-Structures-~~
~~Removal.pdf.~~
~~132 NPS, “Elwha River Restoration Frequently Asked Questions,” at https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-~~
~~faq.htm.~~
~~133 Klamath River Renewal Corporation, Definite Plan for the Lower Klamath River, June 2018, at~~
~~https://klamathrenewal.org/definite-plan/.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

19

~~link to page 19 link to page 19~~ ~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

involvement for removal. Case Histories
Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams
The Elwha Dam was built in the 1910s and the Glines Canyon Dam was built in the 1920s on the Elwha River in The Elwha Dam was built in the 1910s and the Glines Canyon Dam was built in the 1920s on the Elwha River in
Washington’s Olympic Peninsula. Both Washington’s Olympic Peninsula. Both ~~dams~~ were operated to provide hydropower, and neither had fish passage were operated to provide hydropower, and neither had fish passage
facilities. Dam construction impacted facilities. Dam construction impacted ~~cultural resources of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; the tribe historically~~
~~was sustained by~~ the Elwha River’s fish resourcesthe Elwha River’s fish resources ~~and now resides in~~, which historically sustained the Lower Elwha Klallam the Lower Elwha Klallam ~~Reservation at the~~
~~mouth of the river~~Tribe. In 1938, Congress established Olympic National Park (16 U.S.C. §251), which included the . In 1938, Congress established Olympic National Park (16 U.S.C. §251), which included the
Elwha Dam within its boundaries. Elwha Dam within its boundaries. ~~These~~The park’s boundaries expanded in 1940 to include the Glines Canyon Dam. boundaries expanded in 1940 to include the Glines Canyon Dam.
The The tribe now resides in the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation at the mouth of the river, outside of the park boundary. The Elwha Dam was never licensed for hydropower production. The dam’s owner, Crown Zellerbach Elwha Dam was never licensed for hydropower production. The dam’s owner, Crown Zellerbach
Corporation, filed a license application for the Elwha Dam in 1968. Crown Zellerbach Corporation also filed an Corporation, filed a license application for the Elwha Dam in 1968. Crown Zellerbach Corporation also filed an
application to relicense Glines Canyon Dam in 1973, the year its original license expired. In 1979, the Federal application to relicense Glines Canyon Dam in 1973, the year its original license expired. In 1979, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) consolidated the applications into a single process. In 1986, Congress Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) consolidated the applications into a single process. In 1986, Congress
amended the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. §§791 et seq.)amended the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. §§791 et seq.)~~, which required~~ to require FERC to consider impacts FERC to consider impacts ofon natural natural
resources and effects on federal and tribal lands in licensing hydropower projects (seeresources and effects on federal and tribal lands in licensing hydropower projects (see “Relicensing of Nonfederal
Hydropower Projects Under the Federal Power Act”). Also in 1986, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed an . Also in 1986, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed an
intervening motion intervening motion ~~aiming~~ to halt relicensing proceedings by FERC and require removal of the dams. FERC to halt relicensing proceedings by FERC and require removal of the dams. FERC
~~proceeded to prepare~~prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Elwha and Glines Canyon hydroelectric an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Elwha and Glines Canyon hydroelectric
projects to evaluate their potential impacts for licensing and potential alternative actions. The process was subject projects to evaluate their potential impacts for licensing and potential alternative actions. The process was subject
to controversy and delay, due in large part to the policy implications of licensing a project within a national park; to controversy and delay, due in large part to the policy implications of licensing a project within a national park;
conflicting federal, state, and tribal resource goals; and legal challenges. conflicting federal, state, and tribal resource goals; and legal challenges.
After a protracted administrativeAfter a protracted administrative and legal process, Congress legislated a resolution by enacting the Elwha River Ecosystem process, Congress legislated a resolution by enacting the Elwha River Ecosystem
and Fisheries Restoration Act (P.L. 102-459) in 1992. The act directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop a and Fisheries Restoration Act (P.L. 102-459) in 1992. The act directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop a
report for Congress assessing alternatives to ful y restore the native anadromous fisheries and the Elwha River report for Congress assessing alternatives to ful y restore the native anadromous fisheries and the Elwha River
ecosystem, and it removed FERC’s authority to issue a final licensing decision. In the 1994 ecosystem, and it removed FERC’s authority to issue a final licensing decision. In the 1994 Elwha Report to Congress, ,
the Secretary of the Interior recommended dam removal as the preferred alternative. Under the Secretary of the Interior recommended dam removal as the preferred alternative. Under the 1992 act, a the 1992 act, a
recommendation for dam removal authorized the Department of the Interior (DOI) to acquire the dams at a recommendation for dam removal authorized the Department of the Interior (DOI) to acquire the dams at a ~~fixed~~
cost of $29.5 mil ion and required the Secretary of the Interior to prepare appropriate EISs. The cost of $29.5 mil ion and required the Secretary of the Interior to prepare appropriate EISs. The 147 USACE, Regulatory Guidance Letter 18-01, September 25, 2018, https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/RGL-18-01-Determination-of-Compensatory-Mitigation-Credits-for-Dams-Structures-Removal.pdf. Congressional Research Service 23 Dam Removal: The Federal Role National Park National Park
Service (NPS) issued an EIS and a record of decision in 1995 recommending removal of both dams, and it issued Service (NPS) issued an EIS and a record of decision in 1995 recommending removal of both dams, and it issued
an implementation EIS in 1996 to address the specific construction methods and mitigation measures. an implementation EIS in 1996 to address the specific construction methods and mitigation measures.
After DOI acquired the project facilities in 2000, NPS issued a final supplemental EIS in 2005 to account for After DOI acquired the project facilities in 2000, NPS issued a final supplemental EIS in 2005 to account for
changes, including newly listed fish species under the Endangered Species Actchanges, including newly listed fish species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531- (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-
1544), and to incorporate water quality mitigation plans. Originally, the primary source of funding for dam removal 1544), and to incorporate water quality mitigation plans. Originally, the primary source of funding for dam removal
was the NPS construction budget, but the American Recovery and Reinvestment Actwas the NPS construction budget, but the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided the (P.L. 111-5) provided the
remaining funding necessary to remove both dams. The total cost of Elwha River restoration was approximately remaining funding necessary to remove both dams. The total cost of Elwha River restoration was approximately
$325 mil ion and included purchasing the two dams and hydroelectric plants from their previous owner; removing $325 mil ion and included purchasing the two dams and hydroelectric plants from their previous owner; removing
the dams; and constructing two water treatment plants, flood protection facilities, a fish hatchery, and a the dams; and constructing two water treatment plants, flood protection facilities, a fish hatchery, and a
greenhouse to propagate native plants for revegetation. NPS removed the Elwha Dam in 2011 and the Glines greenhouse to propagate native plants for revegetation. NPS removed the Elwha Dam in 2011 and the Glines
Canyon Dam in 2014. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Geological SurveyCanyon Dam in 2014. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), continue to monitor the Elwha River’s , continue to monitor the Elwha River’s
ecosystem restoration progress fol owing dam removal. ecosystem restoration progress fol owing dam removal.
Klamath River Dams
Much of the Upper Klamath River Basin relies on economic activity supported by irrigated agriculture and the Much of the Upper Klamath River Basin relies on economic activity supported by irrigated agriculture and the
Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project within DOI. Mitigating the effects of water management practices, habitat Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project within DOI. Mitigating the effects of water management practices, habitat
alteration activities, and other factors on species listed under the ESA is a perennial issue in the basin. The basin alteration activities, and other factors on species listed under the ESA is a perennial issue in the basin. The basin
contains seven dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. PacifiCorp, a contains seven dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. PacifiCorp, a
regulated utility, originally owned six of these dams. These six dams are known col ectively as the Klamath regulated utility, originally owned six of these dams. These six dams are known col ectively as the Klamath
Hydroelectric Project (KHP). Historically, all but one of the dams have produced hydroelectric power for the Hydroelectric Project (KHP). Historically, all but one of the dams have produced hydroelectric power for the
basin, including relatively low-cost power for Klamath Project irrigators. The original FERC license to operate the basin, including relatively low-cost power for Klamath Project irrigators. The original FERC license to operate the
KHP expired in 2006. In 2004, PacifiCorp applied for relicensing of the project, and, in 2007, FERC issued an EIS KHP expired in 2006. In 2004, PacifiCorp applied for relicensing of the project, and, in 2007, FERC issued an EIS
for the application. FERC analyzed various alternatives for the application, ultimately recommending a new license for the application. FERC analyzed various alternatives for the application, ultimately recommending a new license
with mandatory prescriptions to create fish ladders. FERC estimated that fish ladders would cost hundreds of with mandatory prescriptions to create fish ladders. FERC estimated that fish ladders would cost hundreds of
mil ions of dol ars to implement and likely would result in net operating losses for the project. As a result of the mil ions of dol ars to implement and likely would result in net operating losses for the project. As a result of the
EIS, PacifiCorp entered into basin settlement negotiations with stakeholders and continued to operate the project EIS, PacifiCorp entered into basin settlement negotiations with stakeholders and continued to operate the project
under temporary annual licenses. under temporary annual licenses.
In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior, the governors of Oregon and California, PacifiCorp, and 44 other parties In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior, the governors of Oregon and California, PacifiCorp, and 44 other parties
announced two interrelated settlement agreements intended to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: the announced two interrelated settlement agreements intended to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: the
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA). Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA).
The KBRA proposed actions to restore Klamath fisheries and assurances for water deliveries, among other things, The KBRA proposed actions to restore Klamath fisheries and assurances for water deliveries, among other things,
~~Congressional Research Service~~

20

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

and the KHSA laid out a process for removal of four of PacifiCorp’s dams, which would be one of the largest and and the KHSA laid out a process for removal of four of PacifiCorp’s dams, which would be one of the largest and
most complex dam removal projects undertaken in the United States. After a secretarial determination on dam most complex dam removal projects undertaken in the United States. After a secretarial determination on dam
removal, the dams would be transferred to DOI, which would oversee their removal. removal, the dams would be transferred to DOI, which would oversee their removal.
~~Much~~Many of the provisions of the Klamath settlement of the Klamath settlement ~~agreements’ provisions~~agreement required congressional action. For the agreements to required congressional action. For the agreements to
enter into force and be carried out, Congress would need to (1) enact legislation authorizing both agreements, (2) enter into force and be carried out, Congress would need to (1) enact legislation authorizing both agreements, (2)
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make a determination on dam removal, and (3) appropriate funding for authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make a determination on dam removal, and (3) appropriate funding for
federal components of both agreements. Congress held hearings on proposed legislation in the 113th Congress (S. federal components of both agreements. Congress held hearings on proposed legislation in the 113th Congress (S.
2379 and S. 2727) and 114th Congress (S. 133)2379 and S. 2727) and 114th Congress (S. 133), but did not enact the bil s into law. but did not enact the bil s into law.
Despite the lack of congressional authorization, some work related to the KBRA and the KHSA proceeded under Despite the lack of congressional authorization, some work related to the KBRA and the KHSA proceeded under
existing authorities. For example, DOI completed studies to inform the secretarial determination on dam removal; existing authorities. For example, DOI completed studies to inform the secretarial determination on dam removal;
however, the Secretary of the Interior could not act because Congress did not pass legislation allowing the however, the Secretary of the Interior could not act because Congress did not pass legislation allowing the
Secretary to make a determination to remove the dams. Secretary to make a determination to remove the dams.
After some stakeholders argued that Congress was unlikely to act on the agreements, in 2016, the parties After some stakeholders argued that Congress was unlikely to act on the agreements, in 2016, the parties
amended the KHSA to not require the transfer of dams to DOI, thus avoiding the need for congressional amended the KHSA to not require the transfer of dams to DOI, thus avoiding the need for congressional
authorization. The amended KHSA authorization. The amended KHSA ~~lays~~laid out a process for PacifiCorp to transfer the dams slated for removal to a out a process for PacifiCorp to transfer the dams slated for removal to a
new nonprofit entity, the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), and to proceed with decommissioning the new nonprofit entity, the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), and to proceed with decommissioning the
projects. In June 2021, FERC approved the transfer of the license from PacifiCorp to KRRC and the States of projects. In June 2021, FERC approved the transfer of the license from PacifiCorp to KRRC and the States of
Oregon and California, as co-licensees. KRRC Oregon and California, as co-licensees. KRRC ~~states that it plans to commence dam removal in 2023~~commenced removal of the Copco No. 2 dam in 2023. The plan is to remove the remaining dams and pertinent facilities by the end of 2024 and to commence with restoration initiatives around the sites. .
Sources: DOI; FERC; KRRC; NPS; PacifiCorp; DOI; FERC; KRRC; NPS; PacifiCorp; ~~U.S. Geological Survey~~USGS; and Julia Guarino, “Tribal Advocacy and ; and Julia Guarino, “Tribal Advocacy and
the Art of Dam Removal: The Lower Elwha Klallam and the Elwha Dams,” the Art of Dam Removal: The Lower Elwha Klallam and the Elwha Dams,” American Indian Law Journal, vol. 2, no. 1 , vol. 2, no. 1
(2013), pp. 114-145. (2013), pp. 114-145.
Notes: For more information on Upper Klamath River Basin issues, see CRS Insight IN11689, For more information on Upper Klamath River Basin issues, see CRS Insight IN11689, Drought in the
Klamath River Basin, by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh. The KRRC is led by a 15-member board appointed , by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh. The KRRC is led by a 15-member board appointed
by the governors of California and Oregon, the Karuk and Yurok Tribes, and conservation and fishing groups. For by the governors of California and Oregon, the Karuk and Yurok Tribes, and conservation and fishing groups. For
Congressional Research Service 24 Dam Removal: The Federal Role more information on Klamath River restoration and dam removal, see CRS In Focus IF11616, more information on Klamath River restoration and dam removal, see CRS In Focus IF11616, Klamath River
~~Restoration and Dam Removal~~Dam Removal and Restoration, by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh., by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Congress also has authorized and funded Congress also has authorized and funded less complex and less expensive removal of nonfederal removal of nonfederal dams compared with~~dams at a lesser expense than~~ the the
Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams. At times, these federal actions intervened in what is normally Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams. At times, these federal actions intervened in what is normally
considered a nonfederal responsibility. For example, Congress authorized and funded USACE to considered a nonfederal responsibility. For example, Congress authorized and funded USACE to
remove the Embrey Dam, owned by the City of Fredericksburg, VA, on the Rappahannock River, remove the Embrey Dam, owned by the City of Fredericksburg, VA, on the Rappahannock River,
for $10 million.for $10 million.~~134~~148 Congress also authorized and funded Reclamation to remove the Savage Congress also authorized and funded Reclamation to remove the Savage
Rapids Dam in Oregon, which was owned by an irrigation district, for $39 million.Rapids Dam in Oregon, which was owned by an irrigation district, for $39 million.~~135~~149
In addition, Congress may authorize studies and construction projects that involve dam removal In addition, Congress may authorize studies and construction projects that involve dam removal
activities but are not primarily for the purposes of dam removal. For example, a USACE study for activities but are not primarily for the purposes of dam removal. For example, a USACE study for
flood risk reduction and/or aquatic ecosystem restoration could include nonfederal dam removal flood risk reduction and/or aquatic ecosystem restoration could include nonfederal dam removal
in the area of study as part of a project alternative.in the area of study as part of a project alternative.150 If the USACE Chief of Engineers recommends If the USACE Chief of Engineers recommends
that alternative, Congress may authorize a USACE project that includes nonfederal dam removal; that alternative, Congress may authorize a USACE project that includes nonfederal dam removal;
in some cases, USACE can pursue dam removal without further congressional in some cases, USACE can pursue dam removal without further congressional action.151 Conclusion Dam removal is a policy option to address dam safety, operation and maintenance costs, ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. The federal government’s role in dam removal varies based on ownership, purpose, location, and other factors. Congress may consider the federal government’s role in studying, regulating, and executing specific projects that include dam removal. This consideration may include whether to authorize the removal of federally authorized dams and the relative importance of dam removal as a policy option for federally managed dams. Also, Congress may consider whether to become involved in dam removal deliberations, 148~~action.136 Congress~~

~~134~~ USACE, “USACE Sets the Rappahannock River Free,” 2004, USACE, “USACE Sets the Rappahannock River Free,” 2004, at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596489.pdf. P.L. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596489.pdf. P.L.
106-53 authorized the removal of the Embrey Dam. 106-53 authorized the removal of the Embrey Dam.
~~135~~149 Reclamation, “Reclamation Starts Savage Rapids Dam Removal,” 2009, Reclamation, “Reclamation Starts Savage Rapids Dam Removal,” 2009, at https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/
newsroomold/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=27841. Title XII of P.L. 93-493 authorized the removal of the Savage newsroomold/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=27841. Title XII of P.L. 93-493 authorized the removal of the Savage
Rapids Dam. H.Rept. 108-357 accompanying P.L. 108-137, among other appropriations bills, directed funds for the Rapids Dam. H.Rept. 108-357 accompanying P.L. 108-137, among other appropriations bills, directed funds for the
Embrey Dam and Savage Rapids Dam removal projects. Embrey Dam and Savage Rapids Dam removal projects.
~~136~~150 For an explanation of this process, see CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand. 151 Oliver et al., Oliver et al., Corps Dam Removal. In some cases, after completing a feasibility study that recommends dam In some cases, after completing a feasibility study that recommends dam
removal, USACE may have authority to begin construction of dam removal without additional authorization from removal, USACE may have authority to begin construction of dam removal without additional authorization from
Congress. In January 2015, USACE completed a feasibility study for the Upper Des Plaines River in Illinois, which Congress. In January 2015, USACE completed a feasibility study for the Upper Des Plaines River in Illinois, which
Section 419 of the WRDA of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) authorized to address flood control and ecosystem restoration. Section 419 of the WRDA of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) authorized to address flood control and ecosystem restoration.
Although USACE recommended the removal of five dams as part of the preferred alternative, USACE chose to remove Although USACE recommended the removal of five dams as part of the preferred alternative, USACE chose to remove
the dams under its Section 206 Continuing Authorizations Program (33 U.S.C. §2330) authority, which does not the dams under its Section 206 Continuing Authorizations Program (33 U.S.C. §2330) authority, which does not
require congressional authorization for construction. Other aspects of the preferred alternative were authorized in require congressional authorization for construction. Other aspects of the preferred alternative were authorized in
~~Congressional Research Service~~

21

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~may consider whether the federal government should have a more limited or an expanded role in~~
~~studying and executing specific projects for nonfederal dam removal, especially in regard to the~~
~~federal nexus for pursuing such projects.~~
~~Dam Removal Legislation in the 117th Congress~~
~~In the 117th Congress, legislation has been introduced to create new authorities related to dam~~
~~removal and to provide emergency and mandatory appropriations for certain activities that may~~
~~include dam removal.137 These provisions are summarized below.~~
~~Several bills introduced in the House and the Senate contain multiple provisions related to dams,~~
~~including dam removal. Title II of H.R. 4375, the Twenty-First Century Dams Act, would create a~~
~~new 30% federal tax incentive, with a direct pay option, to support efforts by private, state, local,~~
~~and nonprofit groups to remove obsolete dam obstructions.138 Eligible expenses include the~~
~~removal, in whole or in part, of powered and non-powered dams, with the dam owner’s consent,~~
~~along with any remediation and ecosystem restoration costs associated with a removal project.139~~
~~Title III of H.R. 4375 also would direct USACE to establish a new dam removal program; it~~
~~would authorize appropriations for the program at $7.5 billion over five years, which would fund~~
~~dam removal projects or dam removal technical assistance programs aimed at protecting human~~
~~health and safety, restoring aquatic habitat and riverine processes, and enhancing river-based~~
~~recreation, among other objectives.140 The bill would establish a dam removal council comprising~~
~~the heads of multiple federal agencies to develop a strategy to remove dams and to make~~
~~recommendations to USACE regarding dam removal projects and technical assistance programs.~~
~~The council also would establish an advisory board of tribal representatives, state agencies,~~
~~nongovernmental organizations, and organizations representing dam owners to provide advice~~
~~and recommendations to the council. Title IV of H.R. 4375 would direct the USGS and the~~
~~Department of Energy to conduct a national dam assessment to assimilate data for stakeholders~~
~~and federal agencies to determine whether government and privately owned powered and non-~~
~~powered dams may be appropriate candidates for removal, upgrading, enhancement for~~
~~environmental performance, or retrofitting for hydropower production.141~~

~~WRDA 2016 (Title I of P.L. 114-322). USACE,~~ ~~Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries, IL and WI: Integrated~~
~~Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment, January 2015, at~~ WRDA 2016 (Title I of P.L. 114-322). USACE, Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries, IL and WI: Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment, January 2015, https://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-https://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works-Projects/Des-Plaines-River-Phase-II/. USACE also removed the Sandy River Delta Dam in 2013 under the Works-Projects/Des-Plaines-River-Phase-II/. USACE also removed the Sandy River Delta Dam in 2013 under the
authority of Section 536 of the WRDA of 2000 (P.L. 106-541), which authorized USACE to conduct studies and authority of Section 536 of the WRDA of 2000 (P.L. 106-541), which authorized USACE to conduct studies and
implement ecosystem restoration projects necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish and wildlife habitat in the implement ecosystem restoration projects necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish and wildlife habitat in the
lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay estuaries. USACE, lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay estuaries. USACE, Sandy River Delta Section 536 Ecosystem Restoration
Project Environmental Assessment, June 2013, , June 2013, at https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Current/Sandy-River-https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Current/Sandy-River-
~~Delta/.~~
~~137 In addition, Representative Simpson released a $3.35 billion legislative framework in February 2021 that proposed~~
~~breaching the four lower Snake River dams while compensating for lost benefits with programs related to energy,~~
~~transportation, and other services. United States Congressman Mike Simpson, “The Columbia Basin Initiative,” at~~
~~https://simpson.house.gov/salmon/.~~
~~138 The amount of the credit would be 30% of the taxpayer’s basis in eligible property (generally, the cost of dam~~
~~removal). A direct pay option would allow taxpayers to elect a cash payment in lieu of the tax credit.~~
~~139 The provision does not include demolishing or removing a federal hydroelectric dam.~~
~~140 The program would not support dam removal of federal hydropower dams. The federal share of the cost of a dam~~
~~removal project would be 100%, unless a different federal share is required by the program of the agency executing the~~
~~project. Monitoring would be an eligible use of funds. Of the authorized appropriations, $30 million would be for~~
~~nonfederal dam removal technical assistance programs.~~
~~141 The bill states that the assessment would be for data gathering and analysis tools and would not make~~
Delta/. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

22

~~link to page 28~~ ~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~S. 2356, also titled the Twenty-First Century Dams Act, includes the same dam removal~~
~~provisions that appear in Titles III and IV of H.R. 4375 but does not include the tax provisions in~~
~~Title II of H.R. 4375. Separate legislation, the Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectric and~~
~~River Restoration Act (S. 2306 and H.R. 4499) includes tax provisions similar to those in Title II~~
~~of H.R. 4375. Section 204 of H.R. 3404, the FUTURE Western Water Infrastructure and Drought~~
~~Resiliency Act, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to arrange for a study with the National~~
~~Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on sediment transport following dam~~
~~removal.~~
~~In August 2021, the Senate passed H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021,~~
~~which includes new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under~~
~~new and existing authorities related to dam removal. The bill would authorize a new $80 million~~
~~collaborative-based, landscape-scale restoration program from FY2022 through FY2026. The~~
~~program would be administered by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and would aim~~
~~to restore water quality or fish passage on federal land, including Indian forest land or~~
~~rangeland.142 Under the program, the Secretaries would solicit collaboratively developed~~
~~proposals for up to $5 million in funding for five-year projects to restore fish passage or water~~
~~quality on federal and nonfederal land.143 The bill also would authorize $250 million for FY2022~~
~~through FY2026 to Reclamation for the design, study, and construction of aquatic ecosystem~~
~~restoration and protection projects, which may include removing fish passage barriers.144 The bill~~
~~includes emergency appropriations that may fund dam removal, such as the following:145~~
~~ $115 million for USACE’s Section 206 Continuing Authorizations Program (33~~
~~U.S.C. §2330) to restore fish and wildlife passage by removing in-stream barriers~~
~~and providing technical assistance to nonfederal interests carrying out such~~
~~activities146~~
~~ $250 million from FY2022 through FY2026 for Reclamation to design, study,~~
~~and construct aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects, which may~~
~~include removing fish passage barriers147~~
~~ $400 million through FY2026 for NOAA’s Community-Based Restoration~~
~~Program (16 U.S.C. §1891a) to restore fish passage by removing in-stream~~
~~barriers and providing technical assistance148~~

~~recommendations on individual dams.~~
~~142 Sections 40804(b)(10) and 40804(f) of Division D of H.R. 3684.~~
~~143 The bill would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to fund project proposals that would result in the~~
~~most miles of streams being restored for the lowest amount of federal funding and to discontinue funding for a project~~
~~that fails to achieve its intended results after two consecutive years.~~
~~144 The authorization of appropriations would be in accordance with Section 1109 of Division FF of P.L. 116-260.~~
~~145 Details of many these programs are in the Appendix.~~
~~146 The bill would provide that USACE would execute these projects at full federal expense (instead of 35% nonfederal~~
~~cost share) and without a cost limit (Section 206 Continuing Authorities Program projects normally are limited to $10~~
~~million in federal funds).~~
~~147 Section 40901, Division D, of H.R. 3684 would authorize appropriations in accordance with Section 1109 of~~
~~Division FF of P.L. 116-260.~~
~~148 The provision would prohibit appropriations to this program for removing, breaching, or otherwise altering the~~
~~operations of a federal hydropower dam. It also states that dam removal projects must include the dam owner’s written~~
~~consent. The provision would provide up to 15% of appropriations to the program for projects pursued by Indian tribes~~
~~or partnerships of Indian tribes.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

23

~~Dam Removal and the Federal Role~~

~~ $585 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) High Hazard~~
~~Dam Mitigation Grant Program (33 U.S.C. §467f–2), of which $75 million is for~~
~~the removal of nonfederal dams149~~
~~ $200 million from FY2022 through FY2026 for FWS’s National Fish Passage~~
~~Program to provide technical assistance and restore fish and wildlife passage by~~
~~removing in-stream barriers~~
~~ $10 million from FY2022 through FY2026 for FS’s Capital Improvement and~~
~~Maintenance account for the removal of non-hydropower federal dams and to~~
~~provide dam removal technical assistance~~
~~ $2.9 billion from FY2022 through FY2026 for FS to carry out activities in~~
~~Sections 40803-40804 of Division D of H.R. 3684150 (Section 40804 would~~
~~authorize $80 million for the program described above to restore water quality or~~
~~fish passage on federal land)~~
~~The 21st Century Conservation Corps Act (S. 487 and H.R. 1162) also would provide emergency~~
~~appropriations from FY2021 through FY2023 to the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior~~
~~for federal land management and conservation, such as fish passage.~~
~~In addition, Congress is debating whether to provide mandatory appropriations for environmental~~
~~restoration in the FY2022 budget reconciliation process, and funding allocated for environmental~~
~~restoration activities could include dam removal. H.R. 5376—approved by the House Committee~~
~~on the Budget on September 27, 2021, in response to reconciliation directives from S.Con.Res.~~
~~14—includes provisions in Title VII related to environmental restoration.151 Some of the~~
~~provisions would provide mandatory appropriations for activities such as habitat restoration and~~
~~restoration of natural resources, among other purposes.152 H.R. 5376 also would provide $250~~
~~million in mandatory appropriations for Reclamation’s aquatic ecosystem restoration program,~~
~~which may include projects that remove fish passage barriers, to be expended between FY2027~~
~~and FY2031.153~~
~~The 117th Congress may debate whether to enact new authorities related to dam removal and~~
~~whether to provide additional appropriations for programs that may fund dam removal activities.~~
~~It also may engage in oversight of federal agency activities pursuant to new or amended~~
~~authorities related to dam removal~~ 25 Dam Removal: The Federal Role particularly those regarding federally regulated nonfederal dams (e.g., dams that are part of nonfederal hydropower projects). Recent Congresses have provided new authorities, expanded existing authorities, and increased funding for dam removal activities, particularly for nonfederal dam removal projects. Congress may consider whether to authorize more programs with dam removal as an eligible activity or to amend existing authorities related to dam removal. Congress also may consider whether the appropriations for new or existing programs that fund dam removal activities are sufficient to meet congressional intent. Congress could, for example, appropriate funding specifically for dam removal activities under programs where dam removal is a possible activity, among other alternatives. In addition, Congress may oversee agency implementation of new or amended authorities and funding for dam removal projects and may review the effectiveness, efficiency, and priorities of and may review the effectiveness, efficiency, and priorities of
~~agencies funding dam removal activities.~~

~~149 The provision states that dam removal projects must include written consent of the dam owner, if ownership is~~
~~established.~~
~~150 This provision would allow FS to allocate the money among the many purposes outlined in Sections 40803-40804~~
~~of Division D of H.R. 3684. FS would have the discretion to use or not use the money for all of the purposes in those~~
~~sections. The bill also would appropriate $905 million for the Secretary of the Interior to carry out activities that~~
~~Section 40804 of Division D would authorize.~~
~~151 U.S. House of Representatives, “Markup of Markup to Consider the Committee Print Containing Legislative~~
~~Proposals to Comply with the Reconciliation Directive Included in Section 2002 of the Concurrent Resolution on the~~
~~Budget for Fiscal Year 2022, S.Con.Res. 14.,” September 2021, at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/~~
~~ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114022.~~
~~152 For example, the Title VII language would appropriate $9.5 billion in mandatory funds to NOAA for coastal and~~
~~Great Lakes restoration and technical assistance (Section 70501) and $400 million in mandatory funds to NOAA for~~
~~the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which has funded dam removal in the past. These funds would be~~
~~appropriated in FY2022; would remain available until September 30, 2031; and would not require nonfederal cost~~
~~share.~~
~~153 Section 70309 would provide mandatory appropriations in accordance with Section 1109 of Division FF of P.L.~~
~~116-260.~~
agencies funding dam removal activities. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2426

link to page link to page 2931 link to page link to page 2931 Dam Removal ~~and the~~: The Federal Role

Appendix. Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam
Removal
Table A-1 provides a list of selected federal assistance (e.g., grants, loan programs) that may be provides a list of selected federal assistance (e.g., grants, loan programs) that may be
available for certain nonfederal dam removal projects.available for certain nonfederal dam removal projects.~~154~~152 The table provides general information, The table provides general information,
if available, on if available, on ~~assistance~~ program authorities, eligible entities or dams, eligible activities and program authorities, eligible entities or dams, eligible activities and
uses, applicable cost share, relevant authorizations of appropriations,uses, applicable cost share, relevant authorizations of appropriations,~~155 recent~~
~~appropriations/funding levels,~~ recent funding,153 and relevant government websites. The list provides an overview and relevant government websites. The list provides an overview
of relevant assistance and authorities; it may not include all potential sources of federal of relevant assistance and authorities; it may not include all potential sources of federal
assistance.assistance.~~156~~

~~154~~154 152 The federal assistance for dam removal described in The federal assistance for dam removal described in Table A-1 is generally applicable to nonfederal dams located is generally applicable to nonfederal dams located
on nonfederal lands. on nonfederal lands.
~~155 The table includes some authorities enacted in the 116th Congress that have not yet received funding.~~
~~156~~153 Recent funding may refer to recent appropriations or funding announced by agencies. Funding announced by agencies refers to the most recent announcement of funding by the agencies as of the end of January 2024. Funding announcements by agencies may include one or more appropriations provided by Congress (e.g., a funding announcement may include appropriations provided by both an annual appropriations act and supplemental appropriations, such as those provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act [P.L. 117-58]). 154 Some programs are available through public-private partnership organizations, including the National Fish and Some programs are available through public-private partnership organizations, including the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation’s Bring Back the Native Fish Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/bring-back-natives), Five-Wildlife Foundation’s Bring Back the Native Fish Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/bring-back-natives), Five-
Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-
waters-restoration-grant-waters-restoration-grant-~~program/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-program-2021-request-proposals),~~
~~Columbia~~programColumbia Basin Water Transactions Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/columbia-basin-water-transactions- Basin Water Transactions Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/columbia-basin-water-transactions-
program), and National Fish Habitat Partnership’s programs (http://www.fishhabitat.orgprogram), and National Fish Habitat Partnership’s programs (http://www.fishhabitat.org/http://www.fishhabitat.org/). Some grant programs may /). Some grant programs may
be used to fund dam removal, but dam removal is not the primary purpose of the programs (e.g., North American be used to fund dam removal, but dam removal is not the primary purpose of the programs (e.g., North American
Wetlands Conservation Act grants Wetlands Conservation Act grants ([16 U.S.C. §§4401 et seq.16 U.S.C. §§4401 et seq.)], grants related to National Fish Habitat Action Plans). , grants related to National Fish Habitat Action Plans).
Some FS authorities allow the agency to provide assistance for watershed or fisheries projects located on nonfederal Some FS authorities allow the agency to provide assistance for watershed or fisheries projects located on nonfederal
lands in specified circumstances (e.g., Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements lands in specified circumstances (e.g., Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements ([16 U.S.C. §1011a16 U.S.C. §1011a)]). ).
These authorities may apply to dam removal. These authorities may apply to dam removal.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2527

Table A-1. Selected Federal Assistance for Removal of Nonfederal Dams
Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
~~Department of the~~
Bureau of Eligible entities Eligible entities
On the request of On the request of
An eligible entity is to An eligible entity is to ~~$15 mil ion annually~~
~~Not yet funded.~~
NA
~~Interior/Reclamation~~33 U.S.C. §2330c(d) Up to $95 mil ion https://www.usbr.gov/ Reclamation Aquatic
include states; tribes; include states; tribes;
any eligible entity, the provide no less than any eligible entity, the provide no less than
~~for FY2022 through~~
~~(Charlie Stern,~~
~~States Aquatic~~authorized $15 for FY2024 watersmart/aquatic/ Ecosystem
irrigation districts; irrigation districts;
Secretary of the Secretary of the
35% of the costs of 35% of the costs of
~~2026.~~
~~cstern@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~Ecosystem~~
~~water districts; water Interior may~~
~~project construction~~
~~Restoration~~
mil ion annually for funding index.html Restoration Program water districts; water Interior may project construction FY2022 through opportunity. (Anna Normand) (33 U.S.C. §2330c) or power delivery or power delivery
negotiate and enter negotiate and enter
and 100% of any and 100% of any

~~(Title XI, Division FF~~ 2026. In addition, ,
authorities; authorities;
into an agreement to into an agreement to
operation, operation,
Section Section ~~1109~~40901 of P.L. of P.L.
organizations that organizations that
fund the fund the ~~design~~study, ,
maintenance, and maintenance, and
~~116-260)~~117-58 authorized
own a facility eligible own a facility eligible
~~study~~design, and , and
replacement and replacement and
$250 mil ion for for upgrade, for upgrade,
construction of an construction of an
rehabilitation costs rehabilitation costs
FY2022 through modification, or modification, or
aquatic ecosystem aquatic ecosystem
with respect to the with respect to the
FY2026. removal; nonprofit removal; nonprofit
restoration and restoration and
project. project.
conservation conservation
protection project in protection project in
organizations organizations
a Reclamation state a Reclamation state
partnering with an partnering with an
(17 designated states (17 designated states
entity that owns the entity that owns the
west of the west of the
infrastructure or infrastructure or
Mississippi River Mississippi River~~) if~~ and
land; and agencies land; and agencies
~~the Secretary of the~~certain territories) if
established under established under
~~Interior determines~~the Secretary of the
state law for the joint state law for the joint ~~the project is likely~~Interior determines
exercise of powers. exercise of powers.
the project is likely to improve the health to improve the health
of fisheries, wildlife, of fisheries, wildlife,
or aquatic habitat, or aquatic habitat,
including through including through
habitat restoration habitat restoration
and improved fish and improved fish
passage via the passage via the
removal or bypass of removal or bypass of
barriers to fish barriers to fish
passage. passage.
CRS- CRS-2628

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
Environmental Environmental
States and tribes are States and tribes are
This program awards This program awards
Each Section 319 Each Section 319
~~Expired.~~
~~$177 mil ion for~~
$200,000 annually for $175 mil ion https://www.epa.gov/ https://www.epa.gov/
Protection Agency Protection Agency
eligible for grants for eligible for grants for
grants to states and grants to states and
grant to a state or grant to a state or
~~FY2021.~~FY2023 through appropriated for
nps/319-grant-program- nps/319-grant-program-
(EPA) Clean Water (EPA) Clean Water
projects consistent projects consistent
tribes to implement tribes to implement
tribe requires a 40% tribe requires a 40%
2027. FY2024. states-and-territories states-and-territories
Act Section 319 Act Section 319
with a state’s or with a state’s or
their approved state their approved state
nonfederal match. nonfederal match.
(Laura Gatz (Laura Gatz,)
Nonpoint Source Nonpoint Source
tribe’s written tribe’s written
nonpoint source nonpoint source
This match is not This match is not
~~lgatz@crs.loc.gov)~~
Management Grant Management Grant
nonpoint source nonpoint source
management management
required to be met required to be met
Program Program
management program programs. Dam management program programs. Dam
on a project-by- on a project-by-

(33 U.S.C. §1329) (33 U.S.C. §1329)
plan. Project plan. Project
removal projects removal projects
project basis. project basis.
proposals may be proposals may be
need to be consistent need to be consistent
sent to state sent to state
with a state’s or with a state’s or
nonpoint source nonpoint source
tribe’s nonpoint tribe’s nonpoint
agencies, usually as agencies, usually as
source management source management
part of an annual part of an annual
program plan (e.g., program plan (e.g.,
competitive request- competitive request-
some states/tribes some states/tribes
for-proposals for-proposals
may have hydrologic may have hydrologic
process. process.
modification or dam modification or dam
removal as priorities removal as priorities
in their plans). Dam in their plans). Dam
removal projects that removal projects that
are consistent with are consistent with
EPA guidelines also EPA guidelines also
are eligible. are eligible.
CRS- CRS-2729 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) EPA Clean Water Grants to states to Assistance in 80%/20% for grants $3.0 bil ion for Annual https://www.epa.gov/ State Revolving Fund capitalize loan funds. constructing and to states to capitalize FY2024; and appropriations for cwsrf (SRF) Loan Program SRF loans made by upgrading municipal SRFs. $3.25 bil ion for FY2024 provided (Jonathan L. Ramseur) (33 U.S.C. §§1381- states to local project wastewater FY2025 and for $851 mil ion to 1387) sponsors, including treatment, FY2026 the SRF program any municipal, stormwater 0%/100%b (project (33 U.S.C. §1387). and $788 mil ion intermunicipal, infrastructure, and loans are repaid for similar interstate, or state other eligible 100% to states). projects through agency.a projects and the community activities, such as project funding implementing and nonpoint pol ution congressionally management directed spending. programs. An EPA report on SRF eligible activities lists dam The Infrastructure removal as an eligible Investment and activity under habitat Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. protection and 117-58) provided restoration. $2.4 bil ion for FY2024. EPA Water Loans or loan A broad range of In general, WIFIA $50 mil ion annually P.L. 118-42 https://www.epa.gov/ Infrastructure guarantees to state drinking water and funding cannot for FY2022 through wifia Finance and infrastructure wastewater projects exceed 49% of FY2026. provided $72 (Elena H. Humphreys) Innovation Act financing authorities with costs of $20 project costs. million for (WIFIA) Program for a group of mil ion or larger (or FY2024; (33 U.S.C. §§3901- projects and $5 mil ion for rural Congress 3914) individual project areas), including capped the sponsors, which may projects eligible for include a SRF assistance. amount corporation; a assistance that partnership; a joint this venture; a trust; or a appropriation federal, state, local, or tribal government could provide (or consortium of at $12.5 tribal governments). billion. CRS-30

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
EPA Wetland EPA Wetland
States, tribes, local States, tribes, local
The program assists The program assists
None. None.
Expired. Expired.
$14 $14.2 mil ion mil ion ~~for~~
https://www.epa.gov/ https://www.epa.gov/
Program Program
governments, governments,
nonfederal nonfederal
~~FY2021.~~appropriated for
wetlands/wetland- wetlands/wetland-
Development Grants interstate Development Grants interstate
governments with governments with
FY2024. program-development-program-development-
(33 U.S.C. (33 U.S.C.
associations, and associations, and
building or enhancing building or enhancing
grants-and-epa-wetlands- grants-and-epa-wetlands-
§1254(b)(3)) §1254(b)(3))
intertribal consortia intertribal consortia
their wetland their wetland
grant-coordinators grant-coordinators
are eligible to apply are eligible to apply
protection and protection and
(Laura Gatz (Laura Gatz,)
for funds to conduct for funds to conduct
restoration restoration
~~lgatz@crs.loc.gov)~~
projects that help projects that help
programs. Grant programs. Grant
develop and refine develop and refine
funds could be used funds could be used

their wetland their wetland
to fund studies to to fund studies to
programs. programs.
identify how dam identify how dam
removal can improve removal can improve
wetland restoration. wetland restoration.
Construction Construction
activities are activities are
specifically specifically
prohibited, unless prohibited, unless
those efforts are those efforts are
undertaken as part of undertaken as part of
a scientific a scientific
demonstration or demonstration or
study. study.
CRS- CRS-2831

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
Federal Emergency Federal Emergency
State governments State governments
The program assists The program assists
Nonfederal cost Nonfederal cost
$60 mil ion annually $60 mil ion annually
$ $12185 mil ion mil ion infor
https://www.fema.gov/ https://www.fema.gov/
Management Agency Management Agency
may submit may submit
with technical, with technical,
share of no less than share of no less than
for FY2021 through for FY2021 through
~~FY2021.~~FY2024 fall
emergency-managers/ emergency-managers/
(FEMA) High-Hazard (FEMA) High-Hazard
applications to FEMA applications to FEMA
planning, design, and planning, design, and
35%. 35%.
FY2026. FY2026.
funding risk-management/dam-risk-management/dam-
Dam Rehabilitation Dam Rehabilitation
on behalf of sub- on behalf of sub-
construction construction
~~safety/grants#hhpd~~
opportunity. safety/rehabilitation- Grant Program Grant Program
recipients for eligible recipients for eligible
activities toward the activities toward the
~~(Anna Normand,~~
high-hazard-potential- (33 U.S.C. §467f–2) (33 U.S.C. §467f–2)
dams and then may dams and then may
repair, removal, and repair, removal, and
~~anormand@crs.loc.gov)~~
dams distribute any grant distribute any grant
structural/ structural/
(Anna Normand) funding received funding received
nonstructural nonstructural

from FEMA to sub- from FEMA to sub-
rehabilitation of rehabilitation of
recipients for the recipients for the
eligible high-hazard eligible high-hazard
dams. Eligible dams dams. Eligible dams
potential dams. potential dams.
must be in a state must be in a state
with a dam safety with a dam safety
program, be classified program, be classified
as high hazard, fail to as high hazard, fail to
meet the state’s meet the state’s
minimum dam safety minimum dam safety
standards, and pose standards, and pose
an unacceptable risk an unacceptable risk
to the public, among to the public, among
other criteria. other criteria.
Federally owned Federally owned
dams, dams built dams, dams built
under the authority under the authority
of the Secretary of of the Secretary of
Agriculture, and Agriculture, and
hydropower dams hydropower dams
with an authorized with an authorized
installed capacity of installed capacity of
greater than 1.5 greater than 1.5
megawatts are not megawatts are not
eligible for the eligible for the
program. program.
CRS- CRS-2932

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Hazard FEMA Hazard
Eligible applicants Eligible applicants
Eligible activities Eligible activities
Nonfederal cost Nonfederal cost
The program is The program is
The level of The level of
https://www.fema.gov/ https://www.fema.gov/
Mitigation Grant Mitigation Grant
include states, include states,
include localized and include localized and
share of no less than share of no less than
funded from the funded from the
funding for a given grants/mitigation/hazard- funding for a given grants/mitigation/hazard-
Program (HMGP) Program (HMGP)
territories, the territories, the
non-localized flood non-localized flood
25%. The recipient 25%. The recipient
Disaster Relief Fund Disaster Relief Fund
disaster is based disaster is based
mitigation mitigation
(Section 404 of P.L. (Section 404 of P.L.
District of Columbia District of Columbia
risk reduction risk reduction
may choose to meet may choose to meet
and is available and is available
on a percentage on a percentage
(Diane Horn (Diane Horn,)
93-288, as amended; 93-288, as amended;
(DC), and federally (DC), and federally
projects, projects,
the cost-share the cost-share
fol owing a fol owing a
of the estimated of the estimated
~~dhorn@crs.loc.gov)~~
42 U.S.C. §5170c) 42 U.S.C. §5170c)
recognized tribes. A recognized tribes. A
nonstructural nonstructural
requirement by requirement by
presidential major presidential major
total federal total federal
federally recognized federally recognized
retrofitting of existing ensuring a minimum retrofitting of existing ensuring a minimum
disaster declaration disaster declaration
assistance under assistance under

tribe has the option tribe has the option
buildings, and soil buildings, and soil
25% nonfederal cost 25% nonfederal cost
or FMAG declaration or FMAG declaration
the Stafford Act the Stafford Act
to apply for HMGP to apply for HMGP
stabilization. Flood stabilization. Flood
share for the overall share for the overall
under the Stafford under the Stafford
for each for each
directly to FEMA as directly to FEMA as
risk reduction risk reduction
award to the state award to the state
Act. Once the Act. Once the
presidential major presidential major
an applicant or an applicant or
projects may include projects may include
rather than on an rather than on an
program is approved program is approved
disaster disaster
through a state as a through a state as a
the construction, the construction,
individual activity individual activity
for an eligible for an eligible
declaration or declaration or
sub-applicant. Eligible sub-applicant. Eligible
demolition, or demolition, or
basis. basis.
applicant, HMGP applicant, HMGP
FMAG FMAG
sub-applicants include rehabilitation of sub-applicants include rehabilitation of
program funding does declaration, program funding does declaration,
state agencies, state agencies,
dams. Modifications dams. Modifications
not have to be used not have to be used
subject to a sliding subject to a sliding
federally recognized federally recognized
must be for the must be for the
for the particular for the particular
scale formula (see scale formula (see
tribes, local tribes, local
purpose of increasing purpose of increasing
disaster for which it disaster for which it
U.S.C. §5170c(a) U.S.C. §5170c(a)
governments/ governments/
the capacity for risk the capacity for risk
was allocated or for was allocated or for
and 44 C.F.R. and 44 C.F.R.
communities, and communities, and
reduction of the reduction of the
the particular the particular
§206.432(b)). §206.432(b)).
private nonprofit private nonprofit
existing structures existing structures
location or type of location or type of
organizations. A organizations. A
and cannot constitute and cannot constitute
disaster. The disaster. The
governor or governor or
only repairs. only repairs.
applicant makes applicant makes
equivalent may equivalent may
decisions about decisions about
request that HMGP request that HMGP
allocating program allocating program
funding be available funding be available
funds to sub- funds to sub-
throughout the state, throughout the state,
applicants. applicants.
territory, or tribal territory, or tribal
area fol owing a area fol owing a
presidential major presidential major
disaster declaration disaster declaration
or Fire Management or Fire Management
Assistance Grant Assistance Grant
(FMAG) declaration (FMAG) declaration
under Section 420 of under Section 420 of
the Stafford Act (42 the Stafford Act (42
U.S.C. §5187).U.S.C. §5187).
CRS- CRS-3033

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Building FEMA Building
Eligible applicants Eligible applicants
Eligible activities for Eligible activities for
Generally, nonfederal For each major Generally, nonfederal For each major
The The ~~notice of~~IIJA
https://www.fema.gov/ https://www.fema.gov/
Resilient Resilient
include states, include states,
BRIC are the same as cost share of no less BRIC are the same as cost share of no less
disaster declaration disaster declaration
~~funding~~appropriated $1
grants/mitigation/ grants/mitigation/
Infrastructure and Infrastructure and
territories, DC, and territories, DC, and
those described those described
than 25%. However, than 25%. However,
under the Stafford under the Stafford
~~opportunity for~~bil ion for BRIC,
building-resilient- building-resilient-
Communities (BRIC) Communities (BRIC),
federally recognized federally recognized
above for HMGP. above for HMGP.
small, impoverished small, impoverished
Act, the President Act, the President
~~BRIC FY2021 was~~with $200 mil ion
infrastructure- infrastructure-
(Section 203 of P.L. (Section 203 of P.L.
tribes. Tribes have tribes. Tribes have
The priorities for the The priorities for the
communities (as communities (as
may set aside from may set aside from
~~posted on August~~for each of
communities communities
93-288, as amended; 93-288, as amended;
the option to apply the option to apply
BRIC program in BRIC program in
defined in 42 U.S.C. defined in 42 U.S.C.
the Disaster Relief the Disaster Relief
~~9, 2021, with a~~FY2022 to
(Diane Horn (Diane Horn,)
42 U.S.C. §5133) 42 U.S.C. §5133)
for BRIC funding for BRIC funding
~~FY2021 are~~FY2023 were to (1) (1)
§5133(a)) §5133(a)) ~~are eligible~~, Fund (DRF) an FY2026. This is in directly to FEMA as incentivize natural economically amount equal to 6% addition to the 6% an applicant or hazard risk reduction disadvantaged rural of the estimated set-aside in the through a state as a activities that mitigate communities, and aggregate amount of DRF. sub-applicant. Eligible risk to public communities in the grants to be sub-applicants include infrastructure; (2) designated made pursuant to the state agencies, incorporate nature- Community Disaster fol owing sections of The notice of federally recognized based solutions, Resilience Zones are the Stafford Act: 403, funding tribes, and local including those eligible for an
~~Fund an amount~~
~~total of $1 bil ion~~
~~dhorn@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~directly to FEMA as~~
~~natural hazard risk~~
~~for an increase in the~~
~~equal to 6% of the~~
~~available. As of~~
~~an applicant or~~
~~reduction activities~~
~~federal share up to~~
~~estimated aggregate~~
~~August 31, 2021,~~

~~through a state as a~~
~~that mitigate risk to~~
~~90% of project costs~~
~~amount of the grants~~
~~there was $1.64~~

~~sub-applicant. Eligible~~
~~public infrastructure~~
~~on request, and the~~
~~to be made pursuant~~
~~bil ion set aside in~~
~~sub-applicants include and disadvantaged~~
~~nonfederal cost share to the fol owing~~
~~the fund for the~~
~~state agencies,~~
~~communities; (2)~~
~~may be waived for~~
~~sections of the~~
~~program (see CRS~~
~~federally recognized~~
~~projects that mitigate~~
~~insular areas if the~~
~~Stafford Act: 403,~~
~~Report R45484,~~
~~tribes, and local~~
~~risk to one or more~~
~~nonfederal share is~~
~~406, 407, 408, 410,~~
~~The Disaster Relief~~ 406, 407, 408, 410, opportunity for governments/ designed to reduce increase in the
~~governments/~~
~~community lifelines;~~
~~under $200,000.~~
416, and 428. 416, and 428.
~~Fund: Overview and~~ BRIC posted on communities. Any carbon emissions; (3) federal share up to October 12, 2023, states or territories, enhance climate 90% of project costs stated a total of or federally resilience and on request. The $1 bil ion recognized tribes adaptation; (4) nonfederal cost share available. that are entirely or promote equity and may be waived for partially located in a prioritize insular areas if the As of December state or territory, disadvantaged nonfederal share is 31, 2023, there that have had a major communities; and (5) under $200,000. was $4.577 bil ion disaster declaration increase funding to set aside in the in the seven years applicants that DRF for the prior to the facilitate the adoption program (see CRS application start date and enforcement of Report R45484, are eligible to apply. the latest published The Disaster Relief All states, territories, editions of building Fund: Overview and and federally codes. Issues, for more recognized tribes had information on COVID-19 disaster the Disaster Relief declarations in 2020. Fund). CRS-34
~~communities. Any~~
~~(3) projects that~~
Issues, for more
~~states or territories,~~
~~incorporate nature-~~
~~information on~~
~~or federally~~
~~based solutions; (4)~~
~~the Disaster Relief~~
~~recognized tribes~~
~~projects that enhance~~
~~Fund).~~
~~that are entirely or~~
~~climate resilience;~~
~~partially located in a~~
~~and (5) projects~~
~~state or territory,~~
~~proposed by~~
~~that have had a major applicants that adopt~~
~~disaster declaration~~
~~and enforce~~
~~in the seven years~~
~~mandatory building~~
~~prior to the~~
~~codes based on the~~
~~application start date~~
~~latest published~~
~~are eligible to apply.~~
~~editions of building~~
~~All states, territories,~~
~~codes.~~
~~and federally~~
~~recognized tribes had~~
~~COVID-19 disaster~~
~~declarations in 2020.~~
~~CRS-31~~

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Flood FEMA Flood
Eligible applicants Eligible applicants
~~Grants may be used~~Eligible activities
Generally, federal Generally, federal
The program is The program is
~~$160 mil ion is~~The IIJA
https://www.fema.gov/ https://www.fema.gov/
Mitigation Assistance Mitigation Assistance
include states, include states,
~~for a number of~~include localized and
funding is available funding is available
funded from NFIP funded from NFIP
~~available for FMA~~appropriated $3.5
grants/mitigation/floods grants/mitigation/floods
Grant Program Grant Program,
territories, tribal territories, tribal
~~purposes, including~~non-localized flood
for up to 75% of for up to 75% of
policyholders’ policyholders’
~~from the National~~bil ion for FMA,
(Diane Horn (Diane Horn,)
(Title XIII of P.L. 90- (Title XIII of P.L. 90-
governments governments
~~state and local~~risk reduction
eligible costs. FEMA eligible costs. FEMA
premiums, fees, and premiums, fees, and
~~Flood Insurance~~
~~dhorn@crs.loc.gov)~~
with $700 mil ion 448, as amended; 42 448, as amended; 42
(federally (federally
~~mitigation planning;~~projects, which may
may contribute up to may contribute up to
surcharges. No surcharges. No
~~Fund for FY2021.~~for each of
U.S.C. 4104c) U.S.C. 4104c)
recognized), and local recognized), and local ~~the elevation,~~include the
90% for repetitive 90% for repetitive
funding is funding is

FY2022 to communities, as communities, as
~~relocation~~construction, ,
loss properties and loss properties and
appropriated for the appropriated for the
FY2026. defined in 42 U.S.C. defined in 42 U.S.C.
demolition, or demolition, or ~~flood~~
up to 100% for up to 100% for
program. Congress program. Congress
§4003(a)(1) and 2 §4003(a)(1) and 2
~~proofing~~rehabilitation of of
severe repetitive loss severe repetitive loss
allows FEMA to allows FEMA to
U.S.C. §4104c(h)(1). U.S.C. §4104c(h)(1).
~~structures; the~~dams. Modifications
properties, as defined withdraw funds from properties, as defined withdraw funds from
~~Sub-applicants~~
~~acquisition of~~The notice of Sub-applicants must be for the
in 42 U.S.C. §4014(h) in 42 U.S.C. §4014(h)
the National Flood the National Flood
funding include communities include communities
~~properties; and other~~ purpose of increasing and 44 C.F.R. and 44 C.F.R.
Insurance Fund and Insurance Fund and
~~and tribal~~
~~activities. The same~~opportunity for and tribal the capacity for risk
§79.2(h). §79.2(h).
to use those funds to to use those funds to
~~governments~~
~~restrictions on~~FMA posted on governments reduction of the
operate the NFIP, operate the NFIP,
October 12, 2023, (including federally (including federally
~~funding identified~~existing structures.
but the spending but the spending
~~recognized tribes~~
~~above for the HMGP~~stated a total of recognized tribes Non-localized flood
authority to use authority to use
$800 mil ion that choose to apply that choose to apply
~~apply to Flood~~risk reduction
these offsetting these offsetting
available. as sub-applicants). All as sub-applicants). All
~~Mitigation Assistance.~~projects such as dam
col ections for the col ections for the
sub-applicants must sub-applicants must
~~In addition, mitigation~~removal are only
program must be program must be
be participating in the be participating in the ~~projects are required~~eligible if the FEMA
authorized in authorized in
National Flood National Flood
~~to meet the minimum~~Administrator
appropriations acts. appropriations acts.
Insurance Program Insurance Program
~~standards set by the~~
determines in a and must not be and must not be
~~NFIP.~~mitigation plan that
withdrawn, on withdrawn, on
~~probation, or~~
~~suspended.~~
~~Structures identified~~
~~in the sub-application~~
~~must have an NFIP~~
~~policy in effect when~~
~~applying and must~~
such activities are the probation, or most cost-effective suspended. mitigation activities Structures identified for the NFIP. in the sub-application Mitigation projects must have an NFIP are required to meet policy in effect when minimum standards applying and must set by the NFIP. maintain it through maintain it through
the life of the project. the life of the project.
FMA funding does FMA funding does
not require a Stafford not require a Stafford
Act declaration. Act declaration.

CRS- CRS-3235

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Public FEMA Public
Eligible applicants Eligible applicants
The program The program
The Stafford Act The Stafford Act
Assistance is funded Assistance is funded
Public assistance Public assistance
https://www.fema.gov/ https://www.fema.gov/
Assistance Assistance
include state, tribal, include state, tribal,
supports emergency supports emergency
authorizes FEMA to authorizes FEMA to
from the Disaster from the Disaster
funding is available assistance/public funding is available assistance/public
(Sections 324, 402, (Sections 324, 402,
territorial, or local territorial, or local
work, including work, including
reimburse not less reimburse not less
Relief Fund and is Relief Fund and is
only at the only at the
(Erica Lee (Erica Lee,)
403, 406, 407, 418, 403, 406, 407, 418,
governments and governments and
permanent work to permanent work to
than 75% of the than 75% of the
available only available only
request of a request of a
~~ealee@crs.loc.gov)~~
419, 428, and 502 of 419, 428, and 502 of
certain nonprofit certain nonprofit
repair, restore, repair, restore,
eligible costs of eligible costs of
pursuant to a pursuant to a
governor or tribal governor or tribal
P.L. 93-288, as P.L. 93-288, as
organizations, as organizations, as
reconstruct, or reconstruct, or
specific types of specific types of
Stafford Act Stafford Act
chief executive chief executive

amended) amended)
defined in 42 U.S.C. defined in 42 U.S.C.
replace disaster- replace disaster-
disaster response and declaration of disaster response and declaration of
when an incident when an incident
§5122, when §5122, when
damaged facilities, damaged facilities,
recovery work recovery work
emergency or major emergency or major
exceeds local exceeds local
authorized as part of authorized as part of
including water including water
undertaken by undertaken by
disaster (42 U.S.C. disaster (42 U.S.C.
ability to recover. ability to recover.
a presidential a presidential
control facilities. control facilities.
eligible applicants. eligible applicants.
§5170). If significant §5170). If significant
FEMA evaluates FEMA evaluates
emergency emergency
Water control Water control
FEMA may FEMA may
damage occurs as a damage occurs as a
the request and the request and
declaration or major declaration or major
facilities may include facilities may include
recommend that the recommend that the
result of one or result of one or
then may then may
disaster declaration disaster declaration
dams and levees not dams and levees not
President increase President increase
more FMAG more FMAG
recommend that recommend that
under the Stafford under the Stafford
under the authority under the authority
the federal cost the federal cost
declarations, the declarations, the
the President the President
Act. Act.
of other federal of other federal
share, where share, where
governor or tribal governor or tribal
authorize authorize
agencies. agencies.
warranted. warranted.
chief executive may chief executive may
assistance. assistance.
request a major request a major
disaster declaration disaster declaration
for the fire for the fire
incident(s). incident(s).

CRS- CRS-3336

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Resilience FEMA Resilience
~~There is no FEMA~~Eligible entities
The revolving loan The revolving loan
Nonfederal cost Nonfederal cost
~~The act authorizes~~
~~Not yet funded.~~
~~No website yet.~~
$100 mil ion annually The IIJA https://www.fema.gov/ Revolving Loan Fund Revolving Loan Fund
~~guidance available at~~
~~fund~~ include states, may be used to may be used to
share of no less than share of no less than
~~the appropriation of~~
~~(Diane Horn,~~
for FY2022 and appropriated grants/mitigation/storm- ( P.L. 116-284) ( P.L. 116-284)
~~this time. In statute,~~territories, and the
provide financial provide financial
10%. 10%.
~~$100~~FY2023. $500 mil ion mil ion ~~annually~~
~~dhorn@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~eligible entities~~
~~assistance for~~
~~for FY2022 and~~
~~include states, insular~~
~~projects or activities~~
~~FY2023.~~

~~areas, and tribes that~~
~~that mitigate the~~
~~have received a~~
~~impacts of natural~~
~~major disaster~~
~~hazards, including the~~
~~declaration during a~~
~~construction, repair,~~
~~five-year period~~
~~or replacement of a~~
~~ending on the date of~~
~~nonfederal levee or~~
~~enactment of P.L.~~
~~other flood control~~
~~116-284 P.L. 114-322~~
~~structure, in~~
~~(January 1, 2021).~~
~~consultation with~~
~~USACE, among other~~
~~activities.~~
~~Fish and Wildlife~~
~~The program works~~
~~Fish passage projects~~
~~Pursuant to FWS~~
~~NA.~~
~~$18.59 mil ion for~~
~~https://www.fws.gov/~~
~~Service (FWS)~~
~~on a voluntary basis~~
~~are to restore~~
~~policy related to the~~
~~FY2021.~~
~~fisheries/fish-~~
~~National Fish Passage~~
~~with federal, state,~~
~~unimpeded flows and~~
~~Fish Passage~~
~~passage.html~~
~~Program~~
~~local, and tribal~~
~~fish movement by~~
~~Program, FWS seeks~~
~~(R. Eliot Crafton,~~
~~(16 U.S.C. §§757a-~~
~~agencies, as well as~~
~~removing barriers or~~
~~to secure at least~~
~~rcrafton@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~757g; 16 U.S.C.~~
~~with private partners~~
~~bypass options.~~
~~50% of total project~~
~~§§5151 et seq.; 16~~
~~and stakeholders.~~
~~Assistance may be for costs from partners.~~

~~U.S.C. §§1531-1544;~~
~~Fish passage projects~~
~~dam removal, water~~
~~This applies to the~~
~~16 U.S.C. §§742a-~~
~~are not eligible for~~
~~diversion, culvert~~
~~overall regional~~
~~742c; 16 U.S.C.~~
~~funding if they are for removal, bypass~~
~~program and may not~~
~~§742j; 16 U.S.C.~~
~~any federal or state~~
~~channels, research,~~
~~need to be achieved~~
~~§§661-667e)~~
~~compensatory~~
~~inventories, and~~
~~on every project.~~
~~mitigation or if fish~~
~~assessments~~
~~Funding matches may~~
~~passage is a condition (examples of funded~~
~~be in-kind services or~~
~~provided by existing~~
~~projects:~~
~~cash.~~
~~federal or state~~
~~https://www.fws.gov/~~
~~regulatory programs.~~
~~fisheries/fish-passage/~~
~~fish-passage-projects-~~
~~at-work.html).~~
~~CRS-34~~

~~Program~~
~~Eligible~~
~~Eligible Activities~~
~~Cost Share~~
~~Authorization of~~
~~Recent Funding~~
~~Website~~
~~(Authority)~~
~~Entity/Dams~~
~~Appropriations~~
~~(CRS Contact)~~
~~FWS Partners for~~
~~The voluntary,~~
~~The program can~~
~~Cost sharing is not~~
~~NA.~~
~~$56.86 mil ion in~~
~~https://www.fws.gov/~~
~~Fish and Wildlife (16~~
~~incentive-based~~
~~assist with~~
~~required in statute,~~
~~FY2021.~~
~~partners/~~
~~U.S.C. §3771; 16~~
~~program provides~~
~~modernizing fish~~
~~but FWS states that~~
~~(R. Eliot Crafton,~~
~~U.S.C. §742a-c; 16~~
~~direct technical and~~
~~passage structures to~~
~~it strives to achieve a~~
~~rcrafton@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~U.S.C. §742e-742j; 16 financial assistance in~~
~~allow safe travel by~~
~~minimum cost share~~
~~U.S.C. §§661-667e)~~
~~the form of~~
~~aquatic resources~~
~~of 1:1 on selected~~

~~cooperative and~~
~~and, at the same~~
~~projects. Cost share~~
~~grant agreements to~~
~~time, allow for~~
~~may be monetary or~~
~~private landowners~~
~~structural stability by~~
~~in-kind contributions.~~
~~to restore and~~
~~designing units to~~
~~conserve fish and~~
~~avoid flood damage.~~
~~wildlife habitat for~~
~~Other eligible~~
~~the benefit of federal~~
~~activities are water~~
~~trust resources.~~
~~control structure and~~
~~Projects must be~~
~~fencing projects.~~
~~implemented on~~
~~private property,~~
~~with the exception of~~
~~efforts that support~~
~~projects on private~~
~~lands.~~
~~CRS-35~~

~~Program~~
~~Eligible~~
~~Eligible Activities~~
~~Cost Share~~
~~Authorization of~~
~~Recent Funding~~
~~Website~~
~~(Authority)~~
~~Entity/Dams~~
~~Appropriations~~
~~(CRS Contact)~~
~~National Oceanic and Eligible applicants are~~
~~The grants support~~
~~There is no statutory~~
~~Expired.~~
~~Up to $1 mil ion~~
~~https://www.grants.gov/~~
~~Atmospheric~~
~~institutions of higher~~
~~projects providing~~
~~matching~~
~~for FY2021.~~
~~web/grants/view-~~
~~Administration~~
~~education;~~
~~sustainable and~~
~~requirement for this~~
~~opportunity.html?oppId=~~
~~(NOAA) Atlantic~~
~~nonprofits;~~
~~lasting benefits for~~
~~program. NOAA~~
~~331374~~
~~Salmon Habitat~~
~~commercial (for-~~
~~Atlantic salmon.~~
~~typically leverages its~~
~~(Eva Lipiec,~~
~~Restoration~~
~~profit) organizations;~~
~~Proposals that~~
~~federal funding with~~
~~elipiec@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~Partnership Grants~~
~~U.S. territories; and~~
~~incorporate proven~~
~~matching~~
~~(16 U.S.C. §661; 16~~
~~state, local, and tribal~~
~~restoration~~
~~contributions from a~~

~~U.S.C. §1891a; 16~~
~~governments.~~
~~techniques and focus~~
~~range of sources in~~
~~U.S.C. §1535)~~
~~Applicants must~~
~~on removal of~~
~~the public and private~~
~~propose work within~~
~~barriers wil receive~~
~~sectors to implement~~
~~one or more Salmon~~
~~the highest priority.~~
~~restoration.~~
~~Habitat Recovery~~
~~Dam removals wil~~
~~Applicants are~~
~~Units in the state of~~
~~receive higher~~
~~encouraged, but not~~
~~Maine.~~
~~priority than~~
~~required, to~~
~~installation of~~
~~demonstrate a~~
~~structures that~~
~~commitment of 1:1~~
~~require operations~~
~~federal funding to~~
~~and maintenance.~~
~~nonfederal match.~~
~~NOAA considers~~
~~cost sharing in the~~
~~evaluation criteria.~~
~~CRS-36~~

~~Program~~
~~Eligible~~
~~Eligible Activities~~
~~Cost Share~~
~~Authorization of~~
~~Recent Funding~~
~~Website~~
~~(Authority)~~
~~Entity/Dams~~
~~Appropriations~~
~~(CRS Contact)~~
~~NOAA Community-~~
~~Eligible applicants are~~
~~The grants support~~
~~There is no statutory~~
~~Expired.~~
~~$8.3 mil ion for~~
~~https://www.fisheries.no~~
~~Based Restoration~~
~~institutions of higher~~
~~habitat restoration~~
~~matching~~
~~FY2021.~~
~~aa.gov/national/habitat-~~
~~Program Coastal and~~
~~education;~~
~~projects that use an~~
~~requirement for this~~
~~conservation/~~
~~Marine Habitat~~
~~nonprofits;~~
~~ecosystem-based~~
~~program. NOAA~~
~~community-based-~~
~~Restoration Grants~~
~~commercial (for-~~
~~approach to foster~~
~~typically leverages its~~
~~habitat-restoration.~~
~~(16 U.S.C. §661; 16~~
~~profit) organizations;~~
~~species recovery and~~
~~federal funding with~~
~~(Eva Lipiec,~~
~~U.S.C. §1891a; 16~~
~~U.S. territories; and~~
~~increase populations~~
~~matching~~
~~elipiec@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~U.S.C. §1535)~~
~~state, local and tribal~~
~~under NOAA’s~~
~~contributions from a~~
~~governments.~~
~~jurisdiction. Projects~~
~~broad range of~~

~~Applicants must~~
~~that restore natural~~
~~sources in the public~~
~~propose work in~~
~~ecosystem function~~
~~and private sectors~~
~~geographic areas that~~
~~and processes wil~~
~~to implement coastal~~
~~benefit species with a~~
~~receive higher~~
~~and marine habitat~~
~~nexus to NOAA~~
~~priority than projects~~
~~restoration. NOAA~~
~~management.~~
~~that install structures~~
~~considers cost~~
~~that require~~
~~sharing in evaluation~~
~~maintenance.~~
~~criteria.~~
~~CRS-37~~

~~Program~~
~~Eligible~~
~~Eligible Activities~~
~~Cost Share~~
~~Authorization of~~
~~Recent Funding~~
~~Website~~
~~(Authority)~~
~~Entity/Dams~~
~~Appropriations~~
~~(CRS Contact)~~
~~NOAA Great Lakes~~
~~Eligible applicants are~~
~~The grants support~~
~~There is no statutory~~
~~Expired.~~
~~Awards depend~~
~~https://www.grants.gov/~~
~~Habitat Restoration~~
~~institutions of higher~~
~~planning and/or on-~~
~~matching~~
~~on the amount of~~
~~web/grants/view-~~
~~Regional Partnership~~
~~education;~~
~~the-ground~~
~~requirement for this~~
~~funds made~~
~~opportunity.html?oppId=~~
~~Grants~~
~~nonprofits;~~
~~restoration activities.~~
~~program. NOAA~~
~~available to~~
~~310918~~
~~(16 U.S.C. §661; 16~~
~~commercial (for-~~
~~Projects can include~~
~~typically leverages its~~
~~NOAA for this~~
~~(Eva Lipiec,~~
~~U.S.C. §1891a)~~
~~profit) organizations;~~
~~fish passage barrier~~
~~federal funding with~~
~~purpose by the~~
~~elipiec@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~U.S. territories; and~~
~~removal.~~
~~matching~~
~~EPA (through the~~
~~state, local, and tribal~~
~~contributions from a~~
~~Great Lakes~~

~~governments. Eligible~~
~~range of sources in~~
~~Restoration~~
~~applicants may be~~
~~the public and private~~
~~Initiative—see~~
~~located anywhere but~~
~~sectors to implement~~
~~33 U.S.C.~~
~~must propose work~~
~~coastal and marine~~
~~§1268c(7)(d)(i )).~~
~~within the Great~~
~~habitat restoration.~~
~~Approximately $5~~
~~Lakes Basin and~~
~~NOAA considers~~
~~mil ion was~~
~~within one of the~~
~~cost sharing in~~
~~available for the~~
~~eight U.S. Great~~
~~evaluation criteria.~~
~~FY2019~~
~~Lakes states (New~~
~~opportunity.~~
~~York, Pennsylvania,~~
~~Ohio, Michigan,~~
~~Indiana, Il inois,~~
~~Wisconsin, and~~
~~Minnesota).~~
~~CRS-38~~

~~Program~~
~~Eligible~~
~~Eligible Activities~~
~~Cost Share~~
~~Authorization of~~
~~Recent Funding~~
~~Website~~
~~(Authority)~~
~~Entity/Dams~~
~~Appropriations~~
~~(CRS Contact)~~
~~NOAA Pacific~~
~~The fund makes~~
~~Eligible activities~~
~~State applicants are~~
~~NA.~~
~~$65 mil ion for~~
~~https://www.grants.gov/~~
~~Coastal Salmon~~
~~available funding to~~
~~include projects that~~
~~required to match or~~
~~FY2021.~~
~~web/grants/view-~~
~~Recovery Fund~~
~~the states of~~
~~address factors~~
~~document in-kind~~
~~opportunity.html?oppId=~~
~~(16 U.S.C.~~
~~Washington, Oregon, limiting the~~
~~contributions of at~~
~~331007~~
~~§3645(d)(2))~~
~~Idaho, Nevada,~~
~~productivity of Pacific least 33% of received~~
~~(Eva Lipiec,~~
~~California, and Alaska salmon and steelhead~~
~~federal funds. Indian~~
~~elipiec@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~and to federally~~
~~listed under the~~
~~tribes, representative~~
~~recognized tribes of~~
~~Endangered Species~~
~~tribal commissions,~~

~~the Columbia River~~
~~Act (16 U.S.C §§1531 and consortia are~~
~~and Pacific Coast~~
~~et seq.) or those~~
~~exempt from any~~
~~(including Alaska) for~~
~~populations~~
~~cost-share~~
~~projects necessary~~
~~necessary for the~~
~~requirement.~~
~~for the conservation~~
~~exercise of tribal~~
~~of certain salmon and treaty fishing rights~~
~~steelhead~~
~~or native subsistence~~
~~populations.~~
~~fishing.~~
~~U.S. Army Corps of~~
~~A nonfederal sponsor Aquatic ecosystem~~
~~The nonfederal~~
~~$63 mil ion for~~
~~$11 mil ion for~~
~~https://planning.erdc.dre~~
~~Engineers (USACE)~~
~~(e.g., a local~~
~~restoration projects~~
~~sponsor is~~
~~FY2021 through~~
~~FY2021.~~
~~n.mil/toolbox/library/~~
~~Section 206 Aquatic~~
~~government or~~
~~are eligible if they~~
~~responsible for 50%~~
~~FY2024.~~
~~FactSheets/~~
~~Ecosystem~~
~~nonprofit entity, with~~
~~improve the quality~~
~~of funding for studies~~
~~CAP%20Section%20206~~
~~Restoration~~
~~local government~~
~~of the environment,~~
~~above the initial~~
~~%20Fact%20Sheet%20an~~
~~Continuing~~
~~consent) is eligible to~~
~~are in the public~~
~~$100,000 in federal~~
~~d%20Sample%20Request~~
~~Authorities Program~~
~~request assistance for interest, and are cost~~
~~funds. The nonfederal~~
~~%20Letter.pdf~~
~~(33 U.S.C. §2330)~~
~~an ecosystem~~
~~effective, including~~
~~sponsor is~~
~~(Anna Normand,~~
~~restoration project.~~
~~dam removal. The~~
~~responsible for 35%~~
~~anormand@crs.loc.gov)~~
~~federal cost may not~~
~~of total project costs~~
~~exceed $10 mil ion.~~
~~during the design,~~
~~implementation, and~~
~~monitoring periods.~~
~~The nonfederal~~
~~sponsor must~~
~~provide all lands,~~
~~easements, rights-of-~~
~~way, relocations, and~~
~~disposal areas~~
~~required for the~~
~~project.~~
~~CRS-39~~

~~Program~~
~~Eligible~~
~~Eligible Activities~~
~~Cost Share~~
~~Authorization of~~
~~Recent Funding~~
~~Website~~
~~(Authority)~~
~~Entity/Dams~~
~~Appropriations~~
~~(CRS Contact)~~
for rlf District of Columbia, assistance for STRLF, with $100 (Diane Horn) and tribes that have projects that increase mil ion for each of received a direct resilience and reduce FY2022 to major disaster risk of harm to FY2026. declaration. natural and built infrastructure from natural hazards. The notice of Mitigation projects to funding address flooding, opportunity for including the STRLF posted on construction, repair, December 19, or replacement of a 2023, stated a nonfederal levee or total of $150 other flood control mil ion available. structure, require the prior approval of FEMA. CRS-37 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) National Oceanic and Eligible applicants are The grants support There is no statutory Expired. The notice of https://www.grants.gov/ Atmospheric institutions of higher projects providing matching funding search-results-detail/ Administration education; sustainable and requirement for this opportunity 352093 (NOAA) Atlantic nonprofits; lasting benefits for program. NOAA posted on January (Anthony Marshak) Salmon Habitat commercial (for- Atlantic salmon. typically leverages its 31, 2024, was for Restoration profit) organizations; Proposals that federal funding with 3-year projects Partnership Grants U.S. territories; and incorporate proven matching ranging from (16 U.S.C. §661; 16 state, local, and tribal restoration contributions from a $100,000 to $1.5 U.S.C. §1891a; 16 governments. techniques and focus range of sources in mil ion. In FY2024, U.S.C. §1535) Applicants must on removal of the public and private up to $700,000 is propose work within barriers receive the sectors to implement anticipated for one or more Salmon highest priority. Dam restoration. supporting the Habitat Recovery removals receive Applicants are first year of Units in the state of higher priority than encouraged, but not selected projects. Maine. installation of required, to structures that demonstrate a require operations commitment of 1:1 and maintenance. federal funding to nonfederal match. NOAA considers cost sharing in the evaluation criteria. CRS-38 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) NOAA Great Lakes Eligible applicants are The grants support There is no statutory NA. Awards depend https://www.fisheries.no Fish Habitat institutions of higher planning and/or on- matching on the amount of aa.gov/grant/noaa-great- Restoration Regional education; the-ground requirement for this funds made lakes-fish-habitat- Partnership Grants nonprofits; restoration activities. program. NOAA available to restoration-regional- (16 U.S.C. §661; 16 commercial (for- Projects can include typically leverages its NOAA for this partnership-grants U.S.C. §1891a) profit) organizations; fish passage barrier federal funding with purpose by the https://www.grants.gov/ U.S. territories; and removal. matching EPA (through the search-results-detail/ state, local, and tribal contributions from a Great Lakes 336437 governments. Eligible range of sources in Restoration applicants may be the public and private Initiative—see (Eva Lipiec, Anthony located anywhere but sectors to implement 33 U.S.C. Marshak) must propose work coastal and marine §1268c(7)(d)(i )). within the Great habitat restoration. $10 mil ion for Lakes Basin and NOAA considers FY2022. within one of the cost sharing in eight U.S. Great evaluation criteria. Lakes states (New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Il inois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). CRS-39 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) NOAA Pacific The fund makes Eligible activities State applicants are Expired. Up to $106 https://www.grants.gov/ Coastal Salmon available funding to include projects that required to match or mil ion for the search-results-detail/ Recovery Fund the states of address factors document in-kind FY2024 funding 351310 (16 U.S.C. Washington, Oregon, limiting the contributions of at opportunity. (Anthony Marshak) §3645(d)(2)) Idaho, Nevada, productivity of Pacific least 33% of received California, and Alaska salmon and steelhead federal funds. Indian and to federally listed under the tribes, representative recognized tribes of Endangered Species tribal commissions, the Columbia River Act (16 U.S.C §§1531 and consortia are and Pacific Coast et seq.) or those exempt from any (including Alaska) for populations cost-share projects necessary necessary for the requirement. for the conservation exercise of tribal of certain salmon and treaty fishing rights steelhead or native subsistence populations. fishing. CRS-40 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) NOAA Restoring Eligible applicants are Eligible activities There is no non- Expired. Approximately https://www.fisheries.no Fish Passage through institutions of higher include locally led fish federal matching $175 mil ion for aa.gov/grant/restoring- Barrier Removal education; non- passage efforts requirement for this the notice of fish-passage-through- Grants (including the profits; commercial through removals of funding. Non-federal funding barrier-removal-grants Tribal Priority (for profit) dams and other in- match funds may be opportunity https://www.fisheries.no opportunity) organizations; U.S. stream barriers for optionally included in posted on July 31, aa.gov/grant/restoring- (P.L. 117-58; 135 territory, state, local, native migratory or an application to 2023, with an tribal-priority-fish- STAT. 1356; P.L. and Native American sea-run fish. demonstrate additional passage-through-barrier- 117-169; 16 U.S.C. and Alaska Native Proposed activities stakeholder support approximately removal-grants 1891a)a tribal governments. may include future for the proposed $85 mil ion for Applicants must project development work. the Tribal Priority (Anthony Marshak) propose work in and feasibility studies, funding areas that benefit engineering and opportunity. U.S. migratory fish. design, permitting, For the Tribal on-the-ground fish Priority opportunity, passage restoration, eligible applicants are pre- and post- Indian tribes (as removal defined in 25 U.S.C. implementation §5304(e)) and monitoring, organizations that stakeholder represent Indian engagement, among tribes through formal other activities. legal agreements. Proposals may Other institutions support hydroelectric and organizations license surrender to may partner with remove dams that Indian tribes and are no longer representatives. economically viable or provide significant public benefits.b CRS-41 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) U.S. Army Corps of CWIFP-eligible The program is Maximum amount of Expired. $104 mil ion in https://www.usace.army. Engineers (USACE) entities include state, authorized to offer CWIFP credit enacted funding mil/Missions/Civil- Corps Water local, and tribal credit assistance (i.e., assistance is 49% from FY2021 Works/Infrastructure/ Infrastructure government entities loans and loan percent of eligible through FY2023, revolutionize/CWIFP/ Financing Program and various private guarantees) to project costs or up of which $81 (Nicole T. Carter) (CWIFP; 33 U.S.C. entities (e.g., projects (or groups to 80% for projects mil ion is §§3901-3914) corporations, of projects) with serving economically specifically to partnerships, and costs greater than disadvantaged support dam trusts) that are $20 mil ion with the communities (88 safety projects for publicly sponsored; fol owing purposes: Federal Register nonfederally federal entities are reduction of riverine 64892). owned dams, and ineligible. or coastal storm the remainder for flood damage; program restoration of aquatic administration. ecosystems; USACE may be improvement of the able to provide inland and $7.5 bil ion in intracoastal loans with the waterways navigation appropriations system; improvement available through of navigation at a U.S. FY2023. $7.2 harbor; or a mil ion enacted in combination of FY2024, of which purposes. $2.2 mil ion is to Appropriations nonfederal dam through FY2023 have safety and limited CWIFP to nonfederal levee nonfederal dam projects, and the safety projects; remaining $5 USACE identifies mil ion is for dam removal as an program eligible dam safety administration. project. CRS-42 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) USACE Section 206 A nonfederal sponsor Aquatic ecosystem The nonfederal $63 mil ion for $8 mil ion https://www.nae.usace.ar Aquatic Ecosystem (e.g., a local restoration projects, sponsor is FY2021 through appropriated for my.mil/Missions/Public- Restoration government or including dam responsible for 50% FY2024. FY2024. Services/Continuing- Continuing nonprofit entity, with removal, are eligible if of funding for studies Authorities-Program/ Authorities Program local government they improve the above the initial Section-206/ (33 U.S.C. §2330) consent) is eligible to quality of the $100,000 in federal (Anna Normand) request assistance for environment, are in funds. Unless an ecosystem the public interest, otherwise waived by restoration project. and are cost effective. statute, the Unless otherwise nonfederal sponsor is waived by statute, responsible for 35% the federal cost may of total project costs not exceed $10 during the design, mil ion. implementation, and monitoring periods. The nonfederal sponsor must provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas required for the project. USACE Section 506 USACE Section 506
A nonfederal A nonfederal
Eligible projects Eligible projects
Federal construction Federal construction
NA. NA.
Funding depends Funding depends
https://www.lrd.usace.ar https://www.lrd.usace.ar
Great Lakes Fishery Great Lakes Fishery
sponsor, including a sponsor, including a
restore fish and restore fish and
cost share is 65%. cost share is 65%.
on the amount of on the amount of
my.mil/Home/Great- my.mil/Home/Great-
and Ecosystem and Ecosystem
private interest or a private interest or a
wildlife habitat, wildlife habitat,
Operation, Operation,
funds made funds made
Lakes-Fishery- Lakes-Fishery-
Restoration Program Restoration Program
nonprofit entity, may nonprofit entity, may
remove dams and remove dams and
maintenance, repair, maintenance, repair,
available to available to
Ecosystem-Restoration- Ecosystem-Restoration-
(42 U.S.C. §1962d– (42 U.S.C. §1962d–
partner with USACE partner with USACE
other barriers to fish other barriers to fish
rehabilitation, and rehabilitation, and
USACE for this USACE for this
Program/ Program/
22) 22)
for a project to for a project to
migration, prevent migration, prevent
replacement of replacement of
purpose by the purpose by the
(Anna Normand (Anna Normand,)
support the support the
and control non- and control non-
projects are projects are
EPA (through the EPA (through the
~~anormand@crs.loc.gov)~~
restoration of the restoration of the
native invasive native invasive
nonfederal nonfederal
Great Lakes Great Lakes
fishery, ecosystem, fishery, ecosystem,
species, and species, and
responsibilities. responsibilities.
Restoration Restoration
and beneficial uses of and beneficial uses of
contribute to the contribute to the
Initiative—see Initiative—see
the Great Lakes. the Great Lakes.
removal of beneficial- removal of beneficial-
33 U.S.C. 33 U.S.C.
use impairments in use impairments in
§1268c(7)(d)(i )). §1268c(7)(d)(i )).
Great Lakes Areas of Great Lakes Areas of
Concern. Concern.
CRS- CRS-4043

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
U.S. Department of U.S. Department of
Only dams Only dams
Technical and Technical and
Federal funds Federal funds
$85 mil ion annually $85 mil ion annually
$ $101 mil ion mil ion ~~for~~in
https://www.nrcs.usda.go https://www.nrcs.usda.go
Agriculture Agriculture
constructed under constructed under
financial assistance is financial assistance is
account for 65% of account for 65% of
for FY2008 through for FY2008 through
~~FY2021.~~
~~v/wps/portal/nrcs/main~~discretionary v/programs-initiatives//
Watershed Watershed
the Watershed and the Watershed and
available to project available to project
the total cost of a the total cost of a
~~FY2023.~~
~~national/programs/~~
FY2024. appropriations for watershed-rehabilitation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation
Flood Prevention Flood Prevention
sponsors for the sponsors for the
rehabilitation project. rehabilitation project.
~~landscape/wr/~~FY2024. (Megan Stubbs)
Program Program
Operations (WFPO) Operations (WFPO)
planning, design, and planning, design, and
Local project Local project
~~(Megan Stubbs,~~
An unspecified (16 U.S.C. §1012) (16 U.S.C. §1012)
program and the program and the
construction of construction of
sponsors must sponsors must
~~mstubbs@crs.loc.gov)~~portion of $50
Resource Resource
rehabilitation efforts rehabilitation efforts
provide 35% of the provide 35% of the
mil ion annually in Conservation and Conservation and
addressing health and addressing health and
total cost of a total cost of a

mandatory funds Development Development
safety concerns of safety concerns of
rehabilitation project rehabilitation project
authorized for (RC&D) program are (RC&D) program are
eligible dams. eligible dams.
and must obtain and must obtain
WFPO may also eligible. WFPO eligible. WFPO
Upgrading or Upgrading or
needed land rights needed land rights
be used for consists of projects consists of projects
decommissioning may and permits. Federal decommissioning may and permits. Federal
rehabilitation built under two built under two
be considered. be considered.
funds cannot be used funds cannot be used
work under the authorities—the authorities—the
for operation and for operation and
Watershed Watershed Watershed
maintenance. maintenance.
Rehabilitation Protection and Flood Protection and Flood
Program. Prevention Act of Prevention Act of
1954 (P.L. 83-566) 1954 (P.L. 83-566)
and the Flood and the Flood
Control Act of 1944 Control Act of 1944
(P.L. 78-534). RC&D (P.L. 78-534). RC&D
projects are projects are
authorized under authorized under
Subtitle H of Title XV Subtitle H of Title XV
of the Agriculture of the Agriculture
and Food Act of and Food Act of
1981 (16 U.S.C. 1981 (16 U.S.C.
§§3451 et seq.). §§3451 et seq.).
Source: CRS, using federal agency websites (see website column), public laws, and appropriations legislation.
CRS-44 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) U.S. Fish and Wildlife The program works Fish passage projects Pursuant to FWS NA. The estimated https://www.fws.gov/ Service (FWS) on a voluntary basis are to restore policy related to the amount available fisheries/fish- National Fish Passage with federal, state, unimpeded flows and Fish Passage for the FY2024 passage.html Program local, and tribal fish movement by Program, FWS seeks funding (Pervaze Sheikh) (16 U.S.C. §§757a- agencies, as well as removing barriers or to secure at least opportunity is 757g; 16 U.S.C. with private partners bypass options. 50% of total project $70 mil ion. §§5151 et seq.; 16 and stakeholders. Assistance may be for costs from partners. U.S.C. §§1531-1544; Fish passage projects dam removal, water This applies to the 16 U.S.C. §§742a- are not eligible for diversion, culvert overall regional 742c; 16 U.S.C. funding if they are for removal, bypass program and may not §742j; 16 U.S.C. any federal or state channels, research, need to be achieved §§661-667e) compensatory inventories, and on every project. mitigation or if fish assessments Funding matches may passage is a condition (examples of funded be in-kind services or provided by existing projects: cash. federal or state https://www.fws.gov/ regulatory programs. fisheries/fish-passage/fish-passage-projects-at-work.html). CRS-45 Program Eligible Eligible Activities Cost Share Authorization of Recent Funding Website (Authority) Entity/Dams Appropriations (CRS Contact) FWS Partners for The voluntary, The program can Cost sharing is not NA. The estimated https://www.fws.gov/ Fish and Wildlife incentive-based assist with required in statute, amount available partners/ (16 U.S.C. §3771; 16 program provides modernizing fish but FWS states that for the FY2024 (Pervaze Sheikh) U.S.C. §742a-c; 16 direct technical and passage structures to it strives to achieve a funding U.S.C. §742e-742j; 16 financial assistance in allow safe travel by minimum cost share opportunity is U.S.C. §§661-667e) the form of aquatic resources of 1:1 on selected $15 mil ion. cooperative and and, at the same projects. Cost share grant agreements to time, allow for may be monetary or private landowners structural stability by in-kind contributions. to restore and designing units to conserve fish and avoid flood damage. wildlife habitat for Other eligible the benefit of federal activities are water trust resources. control structure and Projects must be fencing projects. implemented on private property, with the exception of efforts that support projects on private lands. U.S. Forest Service Restoration of Fund proposals of up Varies; cost sharing $80 mil ion for $26 mil ion in https://www.fs.usda.gov/ (FS) Col aborative priority habitats on to $5 mil ion for five- not required in FY2022 through funding for the managing-land/natural- Aquatic Landscape federal lands. year projects to statute. FY2026. first round of resources/col aborative- Restoration restore fish passage proposals selected aquatic-landscape- (Section or water quality on from the FY2022 restoration 40804(b)(10) and federal and solicitation. (Anne Riddle) Section 40804(f) of nonfederal land and P.L. 117-58) to prioritize for selection proposals that would result in the most miles of stream restoration for the lowest amount of federal funding. Source: CRS, using federal agency websites and public laws. CRS-46 Notes: NA = not applicable. Congress may appropriate funding for programs with expired authorizations of appropriations. NA = not applicable. Congress may appropriate funding for programs with expired authorizations of appropriations.
The Stafford Act defines The Stafford Act defines state as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (see 42 U.S.C. §5122(4)). Any reference in the Stafford Act to Northern Mariana Islands (see 42 U.S.C. §5122(4)). Any reference in the Stafford Act to state and local is deemed also to refer to tribal governments, as appropriate (see is deemed also to refer to tribal governments, as appropriate (see
42 U.S.C. §5123). The Stafford Act defines 42 U.S.C. §5123). The Stafford Act defines Indian tribal government as the governing body of any Indian or Alaskan Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, vil age, or community as the governing body of any Indian or Alaskan Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, vil age, or community
that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. §§479a et seq.; also see 42 that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. §§479a et seq.; also see 42
U.S.C. §5122(6)). Other programs not authorized by the Stafford Act may have different tribal definitions.U.S.C. §5122(6)). Other programs not authorized by the Stafford Act may have different tribal definitions.
~~CRS-41~~

~~Dam Removal and the~~ a. This ratio does not account for additional subsidization. Under certain conditions, states may provide additional subsidization, including principal forgiveness, negative interest loans, or a combination. In addition, appropriations acts in recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their allotted funds to provide additional subsidization, including grants. b. In some cases, privately owned projects are eligible for certain types of activities. CRS-47 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

Author Information

Anna E. Normand Anna E. Normand

~~Analyst~~Specialist in Natural Resources Policy in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R46946 R46946 · VERSION ~~1 · NEW~~
425 · UPDATED 48