Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure
October 3, 2022
Investment and Jobs Act: Overview and Issues Anna E. Normand,
for Congress
Coordinator
Analyst in Natural
Congressional interest in ecosystem restoration focuses on federal activities for specific
Resources Policy
geographic regions, such as the Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, and the Great Lakes, as well as

federal restoration programs and activities. Congress has passed laws authorizing the structure,
Pervaze A. Sheikh,
purpose, and governance of restoration initiatives and programs and has provided appropriations
Coordinator
for their implementation. Congress passed numerous ecosystem restoration-related provisions in
Specialist in Natural
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), which was signed into law on
Resources Policy
November 15, 2021.

The IIJA contains numerous provisions that authorized and funded federal ecosystem restoration

activities. Some provisions directly addressed ecosystems or components of an ecosystem (e.g.,
actions to remove in-stream barriers); other provisions addressed ecosystem restoration indirectly (e.g., activities to restore
landscapes after energy or mineral extraction). Divisions A through G of the law included new or amended authorizations for
a wide range of government activities broadly related to infrastructure, some of which address ecosystem restoration.
Division J of the law provided emergency supplemental appropriations, some of which were for ecosystem restoration or
related activities. Congress appropriated some of this funding as a one-time appropriation for FY2022 and spread out other
funding over FY2022 through FY2026.
Some of the most prominent ecosystem restoration-related provisions in the IIJA included the following:
 Appropriating $7.81 billion in funding for forestry, federal land management, and wildfire-related
activities, many of which relate directly or indirectly to ecosystem restoration, to the Department of the
Interior and the U.S. Forest Service (in the U.S. Department of Agriculture)
 Appropriating $1.90 billion for authorized U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ecosystem restoration
construction projects
 Appropriating $1 billion for a new National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant
Program in the Department of Transportation
 Extending the authorization for the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund mandatory
appropriations until FY2026
 Appropriating $492 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s)
National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund and $491 million for NOAA habitat restoration activities
 Appropriating $1.72 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Geographic Programs, which
support restoration efforts in specific water bodies, such as the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
 Appropriating $255 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regional ecosystem restoration
activities
 Authorizing and appropriating $250 million for the Bureau of Reclamation’s new Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program
Congress may consider several questions and issues associated with new authorizations and increased funding for ecosystem
restoration under the IIJA. Questions may include (1) whether the restoration programs that the IIJA addresses are adequately
coordinated with existing efforts and follow an effective strategy, (2) if federal and nonfederal entities can promptly and
effectively obligate restoration funding, and (3) how best to monitor the implementation progress and performance of these
restoration activities.
Congressional Research Service

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

Ecosystem Restoration
In the past few decades, the federal government has committed billions of dollars toward
restoring ecosystems through federal programs and restoration initiatives. Some of these
programs and initiatives address large ecosystems, such as in the Chesapeake Bay, Florida
Everglades, and Great Lakes. However, no federal programs or laws comprehensively address
ecosystem restoration at a national level.
Federal ecosystem restoration programs typically arise out of either (1) federal agency authority
to address one or more specific component of an ecosystem (e.g., water quality or endangered and
threatened species) and/or a specific type of ecosystem (e.g., coastal ecosystems) or (2) an
authorized restoration initiative or plan that addresses a specific geographical region or area that
represents an ecosystem (e.g., Lake Tahoe). These two approaches to ecosystem restoration are
not mutually exclusive. For example, several restoration initiatives that address specific areas
draw upon broad-based laws. Federal ecosystem restoration efforts can be conducted by one
federal agency or by multiple agencies contributing to a shared effort. In addition, federal
restoration initiatives, programs, and activities often are conducted in partnership with nonfederal
stakeholders, some of which are responsible for a certain cost share of the work.
Congressional interest in ecosystem restoration focuses on both geographically specific
restoration initiatives and broader federal restoration programs and authorities. Congress has
passed laws authorizing the structure, purpose, and governance of restoration initiatives and
programs and has provided appropriations for their implementation. Congress recently enacted
significant new provisions related to ecosystem restoration efforts in the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58).1 The IIJA contains numerous provisions that authorized and/or
funded federal ecosystem restoration activities. Many IIJA provisions that address ecosystem
restoration focus on broad federal ecosystem restoration programs and authorities. Several
provisions also address specific restoration initiatives coordinated by agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
This report lists selected federal programs and activities related to ecosystem restoration in the
IIJA, such as activities to restore degraded ecosystems; to conserve ecosystems and habitats and
the species they support; and to support studies to inform ecosystem restoration.2 Some activities
directly address ecosystems or components of an ecosystem (e.g., water quality), whereas other
activities address ecosystem restoration indirectly (e.g., activities to restore landscapes after
energy or mineral extraction). The report also discusses issues and questions that Congress may
consider related to implementation and oversight of ecosystem restoration provisions in the IIJA
and for future considerations of ecosystem restoration funding.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
On November 15, 2021, the IIJA, an omnibus authorization and appropriations bill, was signed
into law. Divisions A through G of the law included new or amended authorizations for a wide

1 This report generally refers to the law by its title, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58).
Some sources, including some documents published by the Biden Administration, have referred to the legislation as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
2 An ecosystem in the context of this report is a system consisting of biotic and abiotic components that function
together as a unit. The biotic components include all living things, such as plants, fish, and wildlife; the abiotic
components are the nonliving things, such as toxins and nutrients, soils, and climate.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

range of government activities broadly related to infrastructure. Some of these authorizations
address ecosystem restoration. For example, Section 40804 of Division D authorized the Chief of
the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct various ecosystem
restoration activities.
Division J of the IIJA provided emergency supplemental appropriations to various agencies.3
Congress directed agencies to use some of these appropriations for ecosystem restoration or
related activities. Congress appropriated some of this funding as a one-time appropriation in
FY2022 and spread out appropriations for some agencies in specific amounts over multiple fiscal
years, through FY2026.
Table 1 lists provisions in the IIJA directly or indirectly related to ecosystem restoration
activities. For each provision, the table provides a brief description of the activity, any IIJA
sections that amend previously enacted authorities or provide new authorizations for the activity,
and appropriations provided by Division J of the IIJA, if applicable.

3 Division H of the IIJA also included extension of certain trust fund expenditure authorities, such as the Highway Trust
Fund and the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund (§80101 of the IIJA). As noted in Table 1, Section
11123(b) of the IIJA authorized appropriations for FY2022 through FY2026 out of the Highway Trust Fund via
contract authority for the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program. Table 1 also describes the Sport Fish Restoration and
Boating Trust Fund and amendments made to the fund by Section 28001(a) of the IIJA.
Congressional Research Service

2

Table 1. Ecosystem Restoration Activity Provisions in the IIJA
Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Multiple Federal Agencies
Department of the Interior
Amended Section 349 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. §15907) to
Section 40601
$4.677 bil ion total for FY2022 to
(DOI) and Department of
authorize and provide funding for the Secretary of the Interior to establish
DOI, including
Energy (DOE) Orphaned
multiple programs related to plugging, remediating, and reclaiming orphaned

$250 mil ion for activities
Well Site Plugging,
oil and gas wells. Priority projects may include those that remediate soil and
located on lands managed by
Remediation, and
restore native species habitat that have been degraded due to the presence of
DOI and USDA, to remain
Restoration
orphaned wells and associated pipelines, facilities, and infrastructure.
available until FY2030
Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to

$755 mil ion for initial grants
plug, remediate, and reclaim orphaned wells located on lands managed by
to states, to remain available
DOI and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Congress authorized
until FY2030
$250 mil ion for this program.

Congress also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide initial

$2.000 bil ion for formula
grants to states, to remain
grants ($775 mil ion authorization), formula grants ($2.000 bil ion
available until FY2030
authorization), and performance grants ($1.500 bil ion authorization) to states
for activities under this section. Congress authorized the Secretary of the

$1.500 bil ion for
Interior to establish a program to provide grants to Indian tribes or, at the
performance grants to states,
request of the tribe and in lieu of a grant, to administer and carry out
to remain available until
activities on behalf of Indian tribes for activities under this section, and
FY2030
authorized $150 mil ion for these activities.

$150 mil ion for grants to
In addition, the Secretary of Energy is to provide technical assistance to the
tribes, to remain available
federal land management agencies, states, and Indian tribes to support
until FY2030
practical, economical remedies for environmental problems caused by
$30 mil ion total for FY2022 to
orphaned wells. Congress authorized $30 mil ion for DOE for these activities.
DOE, to remain available until
For information on agency implementation, see DOI, “Legacy Pol ution,” at
expended.
https://www.doi.gov/priorities/investing-americas-infrastructure/legacy-
pol ution; and DOE, “Orphaned Well Site Plugging, Remediation, and
Restoration,” at https://www.energy.gov/bil/orphaned-well-site-plugging-
remediation-and-restoration.
CRS-3

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Environmental Protection
Directed the EPA and the Secretary of Transportation to offer to enter into
Section 11520
—
Agency (EPA) and the
an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to,
Department of
among other things, estimate stormwater runoff pol ution loads and provide
Transportation (DOT)
recommendations regarding stormwater management and total maximum
Study on Stormwater Best
daily load compliance strategies within a watershed, including environmental
Management Practices
restoration and pol ution abatement.
Sport Fish Restoration and
Extended authorization for the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust
Sections 28001(a)
—
Boating Trust Fund
Fund’s mandatory appropriations until FY2026 and recalculated the formula
and 80101(b)
for providing appropriations from the fund. The law also addressed expenses
for the fund’s administration. The fund is authorized under 26 U.S.C. §9504
and is administered under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16
U.S.C. §§777a–777m). The fund’s revenue comes from excise taxes on sport
fishing equipment, import duties on fishing tackle and pleasure boats, and the
portion of the gasoline fuel tax attributable to small engines and motorboats.
It provides funds to state fish and wildlife agencies for fishery projects, boating
access, coastal wetlands restoration, and aquatic education; the fund also is
allocated to support programs and activities administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the Coast Guard, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). For FY2022, approximately $400.00 mil ion was provided
to states from this fund.
For more information on the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund,
see https://www.fws.gov/program/sport-fish-restoration.
CRS-4

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
U.S. Forest Service (FS)
Authorized and provided funding and direction for FS and DOI for several
Section 40804
$4.289 bil ion total for FY2022-
and DOI Ecosystem
ecosystem restoration-related activities on federal and nonfederal lands.
(16 U.S.C. §6592a)
FY2026 ($1.385 bil ion for
Restoration
Authorized $2.130 bil ion combined in discretionary funding from FY2022 to

FY2022; $664 mil ion for each of
FY2026 ($1.225 bil ion for FS and $905 mil ion for DOI).
FY2023-FY2026) to FS for
implementing both Section 40803
For information on agency implementation, see FS, “Bipartisan Infrastructure
and Section 40804 combined.
Law,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/infrastructure, and DOI,
Some funds are to remain available
“Investing in America’s Infrastructure,” at https://www.doi.gov/priorities/
until expended; other funds are to
investing-americas-infrastructure.
remain available for four years.

$905 mil ion total for FY2022-
FY2026 ($337 mil ion in FY2022,
$142 mil ion for each of FY2023-
FY2026) to DOI’s Office of the
Secretary for implementing
Section 40804, to remain available
until expended.
FS and DOI Wildfire Risk
Authorized and provided funding and direction for several FS and DOI
Section 40803
$4.289 bil ion total for FY2022-
Reduction
activities related to mitigating future wildfire risk and facilitating postfire
(16 U.S.C. §6592)
FY2026 ($1.385 bil ion for
recovery, rehabilitation, and restoration on federal and nonfederal lands.
FY2022; $664 mil ion for each of
Authorized $3.369 bil ion combined in discretionary funding from FY2022 to
FY2023-FY2026) to FS for
FY2026; $2.314 bil ion for FS and $1.055 bil ion for DOI.
implementing both Section 40803
and Section 40804 combined.
For information on agency implementation, see FS, “Bipartisan Infrastructure
Some funds are to remain available
Law,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/infrastructure, and DOI,
until expended; other funds are to
“Investing in America’s Infrastructure,” at https://www.doi.gov/priorities/
remain available for four years.
investing-americas-infrastructure.
$1.055 bil ion total for FY2022-
FY2026 ($408 mil ion in FY2022,
$263 mil ion for each of FY2023-
FY2026) to DOI’s Wildland Fire
Management account, to remain
available until expended.
CRS-5

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service and U.S. Forest Service
Joint Chiefs Landscape
Authorized funding and provided program direction for the JCLRP. The
Section 40808
—
Restoration Partnership
JCLRP is administered by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation
(16 U.S.C. §6592d)
(JCLRP) Program
Service (NRCS) and FS. The program provides assistance for private
landowners to implement eligible restoration activities. Funds also may be
used for restoration activities on National Forest System lands, administered
by FS.
For more information on the JCLRP, see USDA, “Joint Chiefs’ Landscape
Restoration Partnership,” at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/
national/newsroom/features/?cid=stelprdb1244394.
Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service
Watershed and Flood
Provided funding for the WFPO, which is authorized by the Flood Control
—
$500 mil ion in FY2022, to remain
Prevention Operations
Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534), as amended, and the Watershed Protection and
available until expended.
(WFPO)
Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83-566), as amended. The WFPO provides
financial and technical assistance to state and local organizations to plan and
install measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage and to
conserve, develop, and use land and water resources.
For information on agency implementation, see USDA, “Landscape Planning,”
at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/
landscape/.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service
FS Legacy Road and Trail
Authorized and provided $250 mil ion total for FY2022-FY2026 and program
Section 40801
$250 mil ion total for FY2022-
Remediation (LRT)
direction for the FS LRT program (§8 of P.L. 88–657; 16 U.S.C. §§532 et seq.)
(16 U.S.C. §538a)
FY2026 ($50 mil ion annually), to
Program
to close and decommission temporary, unauthorized, and otherwise

remain available for four years.
unneeded roads and trails within the National Forest System (NFS) to restore
watersheds, habitats, and fish passages.
For information on agency implementation, see FS, “Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/infrastructure.
CRS-6

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
NFS Reforestation
Amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (16
Sections 70301-
—
Requirements and the
U.S.C. §§1601 et seq.) to direct FS to perform reforestation activities on NFS
70303
Reforestation Trust Fund
lands impacted by unplanned disturbance events (e.g., wildfires).
(16 U.S.C. §1600
Removed the annual limit of $30 mil ion in mandatory appropriations from
note and 16 U.S.C.
the Reforestation Trust Fund (16 U.S.C. §1606a) for reforestation purposes.
§1601 note)
For information on agency implementation, see FS, “Bipartisan Infrastructure

Law,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/infrastructure.
Other FS Restoration
Division J provided $5.447 bil ion in total funding for FS, of which $4.289
—
$849 mil ion total for FY2022-
Activities
bil ion was appropriated to implement certain specified provisions in the IIJA

FY2026 ($170 mil ion annually),
as discussed in other entries in this table. Provided $849 mil ion in
including
appropriations for other FS programs and activities with a restoration

$514 mil ion total ($103
component, including funding for hazardous fuels (e.g., vegetation)
mil ion annually) for fuels
management, postfire burned area recovery (BAR), roads restoration
management, to remain
projects, and federal dam removal and assistance. Some of the FS
available until expended
appropriations were not specifical y allocated and could be used for
ecosystem restoration purposes.

$225 mil ion total ($45
mil ion annually) for BAR, to
For information on agency implementation, see FS, “Bipartisan Infrastructure
remain available until
Law,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/infrastructure.
expended

$100 mil ion total ($20
mil ion annually) for road
restoration projects, to
remain available for three
years

$10 mil ion total ($2 mil ion
annually) for federal dam
removal and assistance, to
remain available for three
years
CRS-7

link to page 23
Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Coastal Zone Management
Provided funding for habitat restoration projects pursuant to Coastal Zone
—
$207 mil ion total for FY022-
Habitat Protection and
Management Act (CZMA; P.L. 92-583, 16 U.S.C. §§1451-1466) coordination

FY2026 ($41 mil ion annually), to
Restoration Grants
and cooperation requirements (16 U.S.C. §1456b) and the CZMA Technical
remain available for two years.
Assistance Program (16 U.S.C. §1456c).
For information on agency implementation, see National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” at
https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law.
Fish Passage Restoration
Provided funding to restore fish passage by removing in-stream barriers and
—
$400 mil ion total for FY022-
Grants
providing technical assistance. Reserved 15% of funds for Indian tribes or
FY2026 ($80 mil ion annually), to
partnerships of Indian tribes with nonfederal partners.
remain available for two years.
For information on agency implementation, see NOAA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law.
Habitat Restoration
Provided funding to restore marine, estuarine, coastal, or Great Lakes
—
$491 mil ion total for FY2022-
ecosystem habitat or to construct or protect ecological features that protect
FY2026 ($98 mil ion annually), to
coastal communities from flooding or coastal storms.
remain available for two years.
For information on agency implementation, see NOAA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law.
National Estuarine
Provided funding for habitat restoration projects pursuant to the CZMA
—
$77 mil ion total for FY2022-
Research Reserve System
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (16 U.S.C. §1456-1) and

FY2026 ($15 mil ion annually), to
(NERRS) Habitat
the CZMA Technical Assistance Program (16 U.S.C. §1456c). NERRS may
remain available for two years.
Protection and Restoration receive funds to complete habitat restoration; coastal habitat restoration
Competition
planning, engineering, and design; and land conservation projects that support
the goals of the authorizing laws.
For information on agency implementation, see NOAA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law.
National Sea Grant Col ege Directed the National Sea Grant Col ege Program (33 U.S.C. §§1121 et seq.)
—
$50 mil ion total for FY2022-
Program Marine Debris
to support marine debris prevention and removal activities and provided

FY2026 ($10 mil ion annually), to
Prevention and Removal
funding for these activities.
remain available for two years.
For information on agency implementation, see NOAA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law.
CRS-8

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
National Oceans and
Provided funding to the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund (also
—
$492 mil ion total for FY2022-
Coastal Security Fund
known as the Title IX Fund; 16 U.S.C. §§7501 et seq.). The fund is

FY2026 ($98 mil ion annually), to
administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as the National
remain available for two years.
Coastal Resilience Fund (NCRF). NCRF supports the implementation of
nature-based solutions to enhance coastal community and ecosystem
resilience.
For information on agency implementation, see NOAA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law.
NOAA Marine Debris
Provided funding for NOAA’s Marine Debris Program (33 U.S.C. §1952) for
—
$150 mil ion total for FY2022-
Program Marine Debris
marine debris assessment, prevention, mitigation, and removal efforts

FY2026 ($30 mil ion annually), to
Removal
throughout the coastal United States, Great Lakes, territories, and Freely
remain available for two years.
Associated States.
For information on agency implementation, see NOAA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law.
Pacific Coastal Salmon
Provided funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (16 U.S.C.
—
$172 mil ion total for FY2022-
Recovery Fund
§3645(d)), which supports existing programs in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,

FY2026 ($34 mil ion annually), to
Nevada, California, and Alaska and among the federally recognized tribes of
remain available for two years.
the Columbia River and Pacific Coast for salmon and steelhead restoration
and conservation.
For information on agency implementation, see NOAA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law.
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Aquatic Ecosystem
Provided funding for USACE to complete, or to initiate and complete,
—
$75 mil ion for FY2022, to remain
Restoration Feasibility
feasibility studies that were authorized prior to November 15, 2021. The

available until expended.
Studies
suite of authorized USACE feasibility studies includes studies with aquatic
ecosystem restoration as a purpose.
For information on agency implementation, see USACE, “Civil Works Budget
and Performance,” at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/
Budget/.
CRS-9

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Aquatic Ecosystem
Provided funding for construction of aquatic ecosystem restoration projects
—
$1.900 bil ion for FY2022, to
Restoration Project
and multipurpose projects or multipurpose programs that include aquatic

remain available until expended, of
Construction
ecosystem restoration as a purpose. Did not include limits on starting new
which $1.000 bil ion is for
construction or increases in project cost without obtaining congressional
multipurpose projects or
authorization.
multipurpose programs that
For information on agency implementation, see USACE, “Civil Works Budget
include aquatic ecosystem
and Performance,” at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/
restoration as a purpose.
Budget/.
Continuing Authority
Provided funding for CAP projects without limitations on the number of
—
$465 mil ion for FY2022 for all
Programs (CAPs)
projects, the federal cost per project, or the cost per program. CAPs are

CAP authority projects, to remain
programmatic authorities for USACE to undertake cost-shared projects of
available until expended, of which
limited scope and cost without requiring project-specific congressional
$115 mil ion is for the Section 206
authorization. Some CAPs are directly related to aquatic ecosystem
CAP to restore fish and wildlife
restoration:
passage by removing in-stream

barriers and to provide technical

Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33
U.S.C. §2326) CAP is for regional sediment management and beneficial
assistance to nonfederal interests
use of dredged material projects.
carrying out such activities at
100% federal expense.

Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. §2330) CAP is for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.

Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. §2309a) CAP is for modifications of USACE projects for
improvement of the environment.
For information on agency implementation, see USACE, “Civil Works Budget
and Performance,” at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/
Budget/.
CRS-10

link to page 23
Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Department of Energy
Maintaining and Enhancing
Authorized and provided funding for the Secretary of Energy to make
Section 40333
$277 mil ion for FY2022 and $277
Hydroelectricity Incentives
incentive payments to the owners or operators of certain nonfederally
(42 U.S.C. §15883)
mil ion for FY2023, to remain
owned Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-licensed hydroelectric

available until expended.
facilities for capital improvements (§247 of Subtitle C of Title II of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005; P.L. 109-58). These improvements must be directly
related to eligible purposes, including fish passage and water quality
improvements. Incentive payments must not exceed 30% of the costs of the
capital improvement and are limited to $5 mil ion and one payment per
facility annually.
For information on agency implementation, see DOE, “Maintaining &
Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives,” at https://www.energy.gov/bil/
maintaining-enhancing-hydroelectricity-incentives.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
Aquatic Ecosystem
Authorized and provided funding for Reclamation’s Aquatic Ecosystem
Section 40901(10)
$250 mil ion total for FY2022-
Restoration Program
Restoration Program (§1109 of Division FF of the Consolidated

FY2026, to remain available until
Appropriations Act, 2021; P.L. 116-260; 33 U.S.C. §2330c). Under the
expended.
program, the Secretary of the Interior may enter into agreements with
eligible entities to fund the design, study, and construction of aquatic
ecosystem restoration and protection projects in Reclamation states.c The
projects must be likely to improve the health of fisheries, wildlife, or aquatic
habitat and may include habitat restoration and improved fish passage (e.g.,
dam removal, fishway construction).
For information on agency implementation, see Reclamation, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law Investments,” at https://www.usbr.gov/bil/.
Colorado River
Authorized and provided funding for activities that may include endangered
Section 40901(12)
$50 mil ion total for FY2022-
Endangered Species
species recovery and conservation programs in the Colorado River Basin,

FY2026, to remain available until
Activities
including the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Endangered Fish
expended.
Recovery Programs, Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program, and Lower
Colorado Multispecies Conservation Plan Program, among others.
For information on agency implementation, see Reclamation, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law Investments,” at https://www.usbr.gov/bil/.
CRS-11

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Cooperative Watershed
Authorized and provided funding for Reclamation’s Cooperative Watershed
Section 40901(9)
$100 mil ion total for FY2022-
Management Program
Management Program (Subtitle A of Title VI of the Omnibus Public Land

FY2026, to remain available until
Management Act of 2009, P.L. 111-11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. §§1015 et seq.).
expended.
The program provides funding to form watershed groups in the West that
develop local solutions to address water management needs. These entities
are self-sustaining, consensus-based stakeholder groups. Funding recipients
must be grassroots, nonregulatory entities that address water availability and
quality issues within the relevant watershed, must represent a diverse group
of stakeholders, and must be capable of promoting water supply reliability.
Watershed restoration planning is an eligible activity for a watershed group
to pursue with this funding.
For information on agency implementation, see Reclamation, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law Investments,” at https://www.usbr.gov/bil/.
Watershed Health
Authorized and provided funding for a new Reclamation Watershed Health
Sections 40901(11)
$100 mil ion total for FY2022-
Program
Program. The program is to award competitive grants to eligible applicants
and 40907
FY2026, to remain available until
for the design, implementation, and monitoring of multibenefit habitat
(43 U.S.C. §3207)
expended.
restoration projects. These projects are to improve watershed health in a

river basin that is adversely impacted by a Reclamation water project.
Projects must provide one or more of the fol owing objectives: ecosystem
benefits; restoration of native species; mitigation against the impacts of
climate change on fish and wildlife habitats; protection against invasive species;
restoration of aspects of the natural ecosystem; enhancement of commercial,
recreational, subsistence, or tribal ceremonial fishing; and enhancement of
river-based recreation.
For information on agency implementation, see Reclamation, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law Investments,” at https://www.usbr.gov/bil/.
WATERSmart Grants
Authorized and provided funding for Reclamation’s WATERSmart grants
Section 40901(7)
$100 mil ion total for FY2022-
(§9504 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009; 42 U.S.C.

FY2026, to remain available until
§10364). Under WATERSmart, a portion of funds may be used for projects
expended.
that would improve the condition of a natural or nature-based feature, as
described in Section 40901(7).
For information on agency implementation, see Reclamation, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law Investments,” at https://www.usbr.gov/bil/.

CRS-12

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
National Fish Passage
Provided funding to restore fish and wildlife passage by removing in-stream
—
$200 mil ion total for FY2022-
Program
barriers and providing technical assistance under the National Fish Passage

FY2026, to remain available until
Program, which is authorized by multiple authorities.
expended.
For information on agency implementation, see FWS, “Implementation of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Initial Spend Plan,” at https://www.fws.gov/
media/implementation-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-initial-spend-plan.
Regional Ecosystem
Provided funding for regional ecosystem restoration programs, including the
—
$255 mil ion total for FY2022-
Restoration
fol owing:
FY2026, to remain available until

expended, including the fol owing:

Implementing the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act (P.L. 114-322,
Title III, Subtitle E)

$26 mil ion for Delaware

River Basin conservation

Conducting restoration activities in the Klamath Basin, such as habitat
restoration, planning, design, engineering, environmental compliance, fee

$162 mil ion for Klamath
acquisition, infrastructure development, construction, operations and
Basin restoration
maintenance, improvements, and expansion, as necessary, on lands

$17 mil ion for Lake Tahoe
currently leased by FWS for conservation and recovery of endangered
restoration
species



$50 mil ion for sagebrush

Implementing Section 5(d)(2) of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, as
steppe ecosystem
amended (P.L. 106-506), which addresses aquatic invasive species

Restoring sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the Great Plains
For information on agency implementation, see FWS, “Implementation of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Initial Spend Plan,” at https://www.fws.gov/
media/implementation-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-initial-spend-plan.
CRS-13

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Wildlife Restoration Fund
Modified the formula for making available amounts from the Wildlife
Section 28001(b)
—
Restoration Fund, as authorized by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife

Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. §669(c)(a)), for activities and amended provisions
to address administration expenses (16 U.S.C. §669h(a)). The fund’s revenue
comes from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment.
The fund provides funding for states and territories to support wildlife
restoration, conservation, and hunter education and safety programs.
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act also provides funding for
states and territories to support wildlife restoration, conservation, and
hunter education and safety programs. All 50 states and the 5 inhabited U.S.
territories receive Pittman-Robertson funds.
The fund is administered by FWS. For more information, see
https://www.fws.gov/program/wildlife-restoration.
Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Abandoned Hardrock Mine Authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants to eligible states
Section 40704
—
Reclamation
and tribes to inventory, assess, decommission, reclaim, respond to hazardous
(30 U.S.C. §1245)
substance releases on, and remediate abandoned hardrock mine lands, based
on the need, public health and safety, potential environmental harm, and
other land use priorities. Grants to states and tribes are to be awarded based
on either a competitive or a formula basis, as determined by the Secretary, to
address abandoned hardrock mining lands within a state or tribal jurisdiction.
Grants authorized under this section are not to be used at sites for the
continuing reclamation responsibility of another party under other federal or
state law or to fulfil an obligation under a settlement agreement or court
order in which a potentially responsible party would fund or perform work
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. §§9601 et seq.).
For information on agency implementation, see DOI, “Legacy Pol ution,” at
https://www.doi.gov/priorities/investing-americas-infrastructure/legacy-
pol ution.
CRS-14

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Abandoned Mine
Authorized a transfer from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury to provide
Section 40701
$11.293 bil ion for FY2022 to
Reclamation—General
$11.293 bil ion in funding to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. The
(30 U.S.C. §1231a)
carry out §40701. Section 40701
Fund Transfer
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, established under Section 401 of the
of the IIJA requires the Office of
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA; 30 U.S.C. §§1231 et
Surface Mining Reclamation and
seq.), provides funding to eligible states and tribes for the reclamation of
Enforcement (OSMRE) to evaluate
surface mining impacts associated with historical coal mining. The funding
the $11.293 bil ion in grant
would provide grants to eligible states and tribes in equivalent amounts over a
payments to eligible states and
15-year period, based on relative percentage of coal production prior to
tribes not later than 20 years after
1977. Eligible states and tribes are required to receive at least $20 mil ion, to
enactment. Upon that evaluation,
the extent that the state or tribes total estimated unfunded reclamation
states and tribes would be
needs are not less than $20 mil ion. The use of grants from the amounts to
required to return any “unused
eligible states and tribes for the reclamation of abandoned coal mining sites is
funds” to the Abandoned Mine
limited to Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) projects under Section 403(a),
Reclamation Fund. If any such
Section 403(b), and emergency projects under Section 410 of SMCRA. The
funds were returned, the amount
objective of reclamation under SMCRA is to restore lands or waters
would be credited to the fund and
adversely affected by past coal mining to a condition that would mitigate
added to the balance available for
potential hazards to public health, safety, and the environment. SMCRA
redistribution under SMCRA.
describes differing types and priorities of AML reclamation projects eligible
for reclamation funding from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. A
priority of AML projects may be to reclaim lands and waters previously
degraded by adverse effects of coal mining practices for the conservation and
development of soil, water (excluding channelization), woodland, fish and
wildlife, recreation resources, and agricultural productivity.
For information on agency implementation, see DOI, “Legacy Pol ution,” at
https://www.doi.gov/priorities/investing-americas-infrastructure/legacy-
pol ution.
Study and Report on
Directed OSMRE to conduct and submit a report to Congress regarding the
Section 40802
—
Feasibility of Revegetating
feasibility of revegetating reclaimed mine sites, not later than one year after
Reclaimed Mine Sites
enactment. The report is required to include recommendations for
implementation, identification of suitable reclaimed mine sites, barriers for
implementation, and description of potential job creation.
For information on agency implementation, see OSMRE, “Revegetation
Feasibility Study: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Directs OSMRE to
Conduct Feasibility Study,” at https://www.osmre.gov/news/open-for-
comment/OSMRE-Conducts-Revegetation-Feasibility-Study.
CRS-15

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Department of Transportation
Invasive Plant Elimination
Authorized the Secretary of Transportation to carry out a grant program that Section 11522
—
Program
provides grants to states to eliminate or control existing invasive plants or to
(23 U.S.C. §329
prevent introduction of or encroachment by new native plants along and in
note)
areas adjacent to transportation corridor rights-of-way. Authorized the
Secretary of Transportation to prioritize projects that use revegetation with
native plants and wildflowers and provided for a larger federal cost share for
such projects. Authorized appropriations of $50 mil ion annually from FY2022
through FY2026.
For information on agency implementation, see DOT, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law.
National Culvert Removal,
Authorized and provided funding for the Secretary of Transportation, in
Section 21203
$1.000 bil ion total for FY2022-
Replacement, and
consultation with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
(49 U.S.C. §6703)
FY2026 ($200 mil ion annually), to
Restoration Grant Program Atmosphere, to establish a program to annually award grants to eligible
remain available until expended.
entities (e.g., states, local governments, Indian tribes) for projects that
replace, remove, or repair culverts or weirs that would meaningful y improve
or restore fish passage for anadromous fish. Authorized the Secretary of
Transportation to provide technical assistance for these activities to Indian
tribes and underserved communities. Authorized appropriations of $800
mil ion annual y from FY2022 through FY2026.
For information on agency implementation, see DOT, “Key Notices of
Funding Opportunity,” at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law/key-notices-funding-opportunity.
Pol inator-Friendly
Authorized the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to provide Section 11528
—
Practices on Roadsides and
grants to eligible entities (state departments of transportation, Indian tribes,
(23 U.S.C. §332)
Highway Rights-of-Way
federal land management agencies) to carry out activities to benefit
pol inators on roadsides and highway rights-of-way, including planting and
seeding native, locally appropriate grasses and wildflowers. Authorized
appropriations of $2 mil ion annually from FY2022 through FY2026.
For information on agency implementation, see DOT, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law.
CRS-16

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Wildlife Crossings Pilot
Authorized the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to provide Section 11123(b)
—
Program
grants for projects that seek to achieve (1) a reduction in the number of
(23 U.S.C. §171)
wildlife-vehicle col isions and (2) improved habitat connectivity for terrestrial
and aquatic species to carry out objective (1).
The fol owing funds are authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway
Trust Fund via contract authority for this program:

$60 mil ion for FY2022

$65 mil ion for FY2023

$70 mil ion for FY2024

$75 mil ion for FY2025

$80 mil ion for FY2026
For information on agency implementation, see DOT, “Key Notices of
Funding Opportunity,” at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law/key-notices-funding-opportunity.
Wildlife-Vehicle Col ision
Directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of the practice
Section 11123(c)
—
Reduction and Habitat
of methods to reduce col isions between motorists and wildlife. A portion of
(23 U.S.C. §172)
Connectivity Improvement
this study is to analyze methods to improve habitat connectivity for terrestrial
and aquatic species. Directed the Secretary of Transportation to develop a
standardized methodology for col ecting and reporting wildlife col ision data
and later report on whether implementation of this methodology has reduced
wildlife-vehicle col isions and improved habitat connectivity. Directed the
Secretary of Transportation to establish guidance for a threshold of when a
highway should be evaluated for potential mitigation measures to reduce
wildlife-vehicle col isions and increase habitat connectivity.
For information on agency implementation, see DOT, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law.

CRS-17

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Water Act (CWA;
Provided funding for ecosystem restoration initiatives under the CWA
—
$1.717 bil ion total for FY2022-
P.L. 92-500, 33 U.S.C.
Geographic Programs (various authorities, including 33 U.S.C. §§1267-1270,
FY2026 ($343 mil ion annually), to
§§1251-1387) Geographic
1273, 1275). Geographic Programs are a component of broader col aborative
remain available until expended.
Programs
efforts to improve some of the nation’s aquatic resources that Congress,
The IIJA also specified the total
EPA, and states have identified as economically and ecologically valuable.
amounts to be appropriated to
Program activities include efforts to address water quality impairments, clean
each CWA Geographic Program
up beaches, decrease coastal erosion, protect and improve aquatic habitat,
for FY2022-FY2026, including the
support fisheries, and protect public water supplies.
fol owing:
For information on agency implementation, see EPA, “Bipartisan

$1.000 bil ion for Great Lakes
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.epa.gov/infrastructure.
Restoration Initiative

$238 mil ion for Chesapeake
Bay

$24 mil ion for San Francisco
Bay

$89 mil ion for Puget Sound

$106 mil ion for Long Island
Sound

$53 mil ion for Gulf of
Mexico

$16 mil ion for South Florida

$40 mil ion for Lake
Champlain

$53 mil ion for Lake
Pontchartrain

$15 mil ion for Southern
New England Estuaries

$79 mil ion for Columbia
River Basin

$4 mil ion for other
geographic activities, including
in the Pacific Northwest
CRS-18

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
CWA Sewer Overflow and Reauthorized appropriations of $280 mil ion annually for the CWA Sewer
Section 50204
—
Stormwater Reuse
Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants Program (§211 of the
Municipal Grants Program
Federal Water Pol ution Control Act; 33 U.S.C. §1301) for FY2022 through
FY2026.
Under this program, EPA is to provide grants to states, which are to provide
sub-awards to eligible entities to support stormwater infrastructure, among
other eligible activities.
For information on agency implementation, see EPA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.epa.gov/infrastructure.
Clean Water Infrastructure Authorized a Clean Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Program (§223 of
Section 50205
—
Resiliency and Sustainability Title II of the Federal Water Pol ution Control Act; 33 U.S.C. §§1281 et seq.)
(33 U.S.C. §1302)
Program
to provide funds to municipalities or intermunicipal, interstate, or state
agencies to increase the resilience of publicly owned treatment works to
natural hazard or cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Eligible projects include those
that enhance wastewater and stormwater management by increasing
watershed preservation and protection, including through the use of natural
and engineered green infrastructure and the reclamation and reuse of
wastewater and stormwater, such as aquifer recharge zones.
For information on agency implementation, see EPA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.epa.gov/infrastructure.
Clean Water State
Provided funding for the CWSRF program (§§601-608 of the Federal Water
Section 50210
$1.900 bil ion for FY2022; $2.200
Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Pol ution Control Act; 33 U.S.C. §§1381-1388) and reauthorized
bil ion for FY2023; $2.400 bil ion
Program
appropriations of $2.400 bil ion for FY2022; $2.750 bil ion for FY2023; $3.000
for FY2024; and $2.600 billion for
bil ion for FY2024; and $3.250 bil ion for each of FY2025 and FY2026.
each of FY2025 and FY2026.
The CWSRF program provides funding for water quality protection projects
Each fiscal year appropriation is to
for wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and management, nonpoint
remain available until expended;
source pol ution control, and watershed and estuary management, among
49% of the state’s allotment would
other activities. Through the program, each state (and Puerto Rico) maintains
be used to provide 100% principal
a revolving loan fund to provide low-cost financing for a wide range of water
forgiveness or grants, or a
quality infrastructure projects. Additional subsidization, including principal
combination of these.
forgiveness, negative interest loans, and grants may be available in certain
circumstances.
For information on agency implementation, see EPA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.epa.gov/infrastructure.
CRS-19

Activity
Description
IIJA Authorization
Division J,
Citationa
IIJA Appropriations
Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan
Provided funding for implementation of the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan. The
—
$60 mil ion total for FY2022-
action plan was developed by the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, chaired by EPA,
FY2026 ($12 mil ion annually), to
in 2008. Key goals of the plan are to improve water quality in the Mississippi
remain available until expended.
River Basin and to reduce the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone by
implementing nutrient pol ution reduction strategies and approaches.
For information on agency implementation, see EPA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.epa.gov/infrastructure.
National Estuary Program
Provided funding for estuary restoration efforts under NEP (§320 of the
—
$132 mil ion total for FY2022-
(NEP)
Federal Water Pol ution Control Act; 33 U.S.C. §1330). NEP provides grants
FY2026 ($26 mil ion annually) for
for the development and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation
grants to develop and implement
and Management Plans (CCMPs) to restore and protect the 28 “estuaries of
CCMPs, to remain available until
national significance” included in the program. CCMPs identify actions to
expended.
address various environmental issues, including water quality, habitat, land
use, fish and wildlife, and invasive species in the estuary.
For information on agency implementation, see EPA, “Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” at https://www.epa.gov/infrastructure.
Government Accountability Office
Government
Directed the Comptrol er General of the United States to conduct a study by Section 40805
—
Accountability Office Study
six years after November 15, 2021, on whether Title VIII of the IIJA has
effectively reduced wildfire risk and restored ecosystems on federal and
nonfederal land.
Sources: Congressional Research Service using the IIJA and other statutes and agency websites, as noted in the table.
Notes: IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, P.L. 117-58. Authorization of appropriations and appropriations are rounded to the nearest mil ion. Some entries
include Division J appropriations that are to remain available for a certain number of years, which includes the fiscal year in which appropriated and a certain number of
subsequent fiscal years. For example, the entry “$50 mil ion total for FY2022-FY2026 ($10 mil ion annually), to remain available for two years” means that for each fiscal
year from FY2022 to FY2026, $10 mil ion is to be appropriated, which wil remain available for that fiscal year and for the subsequent fiscal year.
a. This column lists IIJA sections that amend previously enacted authorities or provide new authorizations. New U.S. Code citations for IIJA authorizations are provided
in parentheses.
b. IIJA Division J; Title II; Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Operations, Research, and Facilities; part 9, refers to 16
U.S.C. §1456-1. However, NOAA has interpreted this provision to refer to 16 U.S.C. §1456, instead (NOAA, “Coastal Zone Management,” at
https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law/infrastructure-law-climate-ready-coasts/coastal-zone-management).
c. Reclamation state means a state or territory described in the first section of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093; 43 U.S.C. §391), as amended.
CRS-20

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

Issues for Congress
As discussed above, Congress enacted numerous provisions that address and fund ecosystem
restoration broadly under the IIJA. Many of the provisions appropriated annual funding in
amounts considerably greater than recent annual appropriations for federal restoration programs,
initiatives, and activities. Congress may consider several questions and issues associated with
new authorizations and increased funding for ecosystem restoration provided by the IIJA,
including (1) the extent to which restoration programs addressed by the IIJA are coordinated with
existing efforts and follow a strategy, (2) if federal and nonfederal entities can promptly and
effectively obligate restoration funding, and (3) how best to monitor the implementation progress
and performance of these activities.
Coordination and Goals of Ecosystem Restoration
Congress might consider how ecosystem restoration programs and activities authorized and
funded by the IIJA are coordinated with existing, ongoing restoration efforts. Several existing
restoration programs received appropriations through the IIJA. With this influx of supplemental
funding, Congress might conduct oversight to determine how federal agencies are coordinating
the implementation of ecosystem restoration programs, both at the federal level and with
nonfederal stakeholders such as states, tribes, and other entities.
Following enactment of the IIJA, the White House published an IIJA guidebook for nonfederal
partners, which stated that the law allocated funding to over 350 distinct programs across more
than a dozen federal departments and agencies.4 The guidebook categorized a number of these
programs under the subheadings of Clean Energy and Power, Water, Resilience, and
Environmental Remediation. The guidebook did not describe how departments and agencies
coordinate to administer programs under these themes but rather summarized individual
programs.
Federal agencies also have published spending plans that provide additional detail on funds
received through the IIJA. For example, IIJA blueprints released by the Department of the Interior
(DOI) group programs into investments in “Ecosystem Restoration and Resilience” and “Wildfire
Resilience,” among other categories.5 These plans outline general program and funding
objectives, but few discuss in detail how IIJA funding will complement base-level funding or
projects. Some plans discuss coordination among agencies where the IIJA specifically calls for
coordination—for example, between DOI and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. However, the
spending plans do not specify coordination between federal agencies and other nonfederal
stakeholders in all cases. For example, several of the IIJA’s provisions relate to agency activities
for fish passage, dam removal, and/or culvert removal. FWS’s spend plan states that the agency
would reach out to other federal partners on fish passage activities, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated in a congressional briefing that relevant agencies
and partners plan to meet to discuss prioritization and coordination for fish and wildlife passage

4 White House, A Guidebook to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial
Governments, and Other Partners, January 2022, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/
BUILDING-A-BETTER-AMERICA_FINAL.pdf.
5 Department of the Interior (DOI), “Interior Department Releases Blueprints for Implementing Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law,” February 16, 2022, at https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-releases-blueprints-
implementing-bipartisan-infrastructure-law.
Congressional Research Service

21

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

projects.6 However, these agencies have yet to report on tangible examples of coordination and
their outcomes.
Another aspect of coordination is reaching out to nonfederal stakeholders to inform them of grant
availability and other funding opportunities, as well as creating guidelines for implementing
projects that complement, rather than overlap, existing efforts. For example, at a Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee hearing focused on state and local perspectives of
IIJA implementation, the West Virginia Secretary of Transportation stated the following:
The timeline for receiving guidance through the process of issuing the notices of funding
availability, comment periods for proposed rules, and actual publications of the registry for
rules on many of the IIJA programs appears to be in disarray. In many cases, we have
received deadlines for program plans prior to information concerning eligibility
requirements and funding levels ... A comprehensive IIJA delivery plan is called for and is
much preferable to the piecemeal approach of the last year.7
In one instance, 50 self-described hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations and businesses
petitioned federal agencies to champion outreach efforts and call for a centralized database for
IIJA tracking that includes a national project dashboard, among other requests.8 For example, the
Department of Transportation created a dashboard to track IIJA programs and funding across the
department.9 Proponents of a national project dashboard argued that such an effort should be
designed to capture all federal agency requests for proposals and opportunities for the public to
submit feedback on new programs and criteria established by the IIJA.10
Another challenge is federal coordination with existing restoration efforts and governance
structures. IIJA funds may be implemented by expanding existing activities, which may involve
multiple programs. Many restoration efforts already underway involve numerous stakeholders
and established restoration plans. For example, FWS stated in its spend plan that the agency
would use existing conservation plans coupled with input from tribes and other conservation
partners at annual stakeholder workshops to guide annual spending of IIJA funding for its
ecosystem restoration initiates.11 At a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing on IIJA
funding, the Chief Executive of Intergovernmental Relations for the U.S. Forest Service (FS)
stated that “working together ... in a kind of collaborative form, really helps leverage collective
resources as well ... looking at how we show up with the rest of our partners in this all-lands

6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “NOAA’s Climate Ready Coasts Initiative: Funded by
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” congressional briefing, July 14, 2022; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
“Implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Initial Spend Plan,” February 16, 2022, at https://www.fws.gov/
media/implementation-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-initial-spend-plan (hereinafter, FWS Spend Plan).
7 Testimony of Jimmy Wriston, West Virginia Department of Transportation, in U.S. Congress, Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee, Putting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to Work: The State and Local Perspectives,
hearing, September 21, 2022, at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/9/putting-the-bipartisan-
infrastructure-law-to-work-the-state-and-local-perspectives.
8 Multiorganizational letter to the Secretaries of DOI, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Department of Commerce; the Assistant Secretary of the Army; the
Administers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
Chair of Council on Environmental Quality, “Conservation Considerations for Infrastructure Implementation,” March
3, 2022, at https://fisheries.org/2022/03/conservation-considerations-for-infrastructure-implementation/ (hereinafter,
“Conservation Considerations”).
9 DOT, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Dashboard,” at https://www.transportation.gov/mission/budget/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law-dashboard.
10 “Conservation Considerations.”
11 FWS Spend Plan.
Congressional Research Service

22

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

issue.”12 Some agencies sought assistance from outside entities, such as the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, for coordination and outreach (see text box below).
America the Beautiful Challenge
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) authorized a total of $400 mil ion from FY2022 to
FY2026 to provide grants to states, territories, and Indian tribes for implementing voluntary ecosystem
restoration projects on private or public land. The IIJA did not specify funding amounts to implement these
projects in FY2022, though the funding appears to be part of the law’s $337 mil ion appropriation for the
Department of the Interior to carry out various activities in FY2022. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(NFWF) is administering this initiative as part of the President’s America the Beautiful Challenge. The program
aims to conserve and restore various ecosystems, improve ecological connectivity between landscapes, improve
ecosystem resilience to various threats (e.g., flooding), and expand access to outdoor recreation. NFWF expects
to award $85 mil ion in grants for FY2022, of which the Department of the Interior is providing $70 mil ion.
NFWF has experience in implementing grant programs for restoring ecosystems. Other initiatives funded by the
IIJA are using NFWF expertise; these initiatives include restoring the Delaware River Basin and administering the
National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund.
Source: White House, “Biden-Harris Administration Launches $1 Bil ion America the Beautiful Challenge to
Support and Accelerate Locally Led Conservation and Restoration Projects,” press release, April 11, 2022, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2022/04/11/biden-harris-administration-launches-1-bil ion-america-
the-beautiful-challenge-to-support-and-accelerate-locally-led-conservation-and-restoration-projects/.
Congress may consider identifying its goals for ecosystem restoration and whether the
Administration implements the IIJA to achieve those goals. Although the IIJA contains many
provisions directly or indirectly related to ecosystem restoration, there is no overarching national
strategy or plan for implementing ecosystem restoration activities supported by the act (or in
general). Congress may consider whether the Administration should implement the IIJA to
address restoration holistically within an ecosystem or region or support specific restoration
activities that address an ecosystem factor, such as a species population or remediation of a toxin.
Ecosystem Restoration Funding
The IIJA provided many restoration programs and projects with funding in excess of recent
annual appropriations for these activities. For example, USACE allocated $1.1 billion of the $1.9
billion in IIJA appropriations for USACE aquatic ecosystem restoration construction to the
Everglades, which received $351 million in USACE construction account annual appropriations
in FY2022. Similarly, the IIJA provided $98 million annually for five years for NOAA’s National
Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, which received $34 million in annual appropriations in
FY2022.13 In addition to the IIJA and FY2022 annual appropriations, some funding provided in
P.L. 117-169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, may go to activities
directly or indirectly related to ecosystem restoration (see textbox below).

12 Testimony of Brian Ferebee, chief executive of Intergovernmental Relations, USDA, U.S. Forest Service (FS), in
U.S. Congress, House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands,
Oversight: Investing in Wildfire Management, Ecosystem Restoration, and Resilient Communities: Examining the
Biden Administration’s Priorities for Implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, hearing, April 5, 2022, at
https://naturalresources.house.gov/hearings/investing-in-wildfire-management-ecosystem-restoration-and-resilient-
communities-examining-the-biden-administrations-priorities-for-implementation-of-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-law.
13 For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) IIJA spend plan and FY2022 work plans, see USACE, “Civil
Works Budget and Performance,” at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/.
Congressional Research Service

23

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
On August 16, 2022, P.L. 117-169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA 2022), was
enacted into law. Some of the funding provided by IRA 2022 may be used by agencies for activities directly or
indirectly related to ecosystem restoration. IRA 2022 funding, which was provided over a similar timespan as
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) funding, also may complement activities funded by the
IIJA. Some such provisions in IRA 2022 include the fol owing:

Title II, Subtitle D (§§23001-23005), appropriated $5.0 bil ion to the U.S. Forest Service for forest
restoration, management, and planning activities for federal and nonfederal forests.

Section 40001 appropriated $2.6 bil ion to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
provide funding to certain nonfederal entities for the conservation, restoration, and protection of coastal
and marine habitats, resources, and Pacific salmon and other marine fisheries, among other purposes.

Section 50222 appropriated $250 mil ion to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out conservation,
ecosystem, and habitat restoration projects on lands administered by the National Park Service and the
Bureau of Land Management.

Section 50233 appropriated $4.0 bil ion to the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation) for certain activities to mitigate the impacts of drought in the
Reclamation states. These activities may include ecosystem and habitat restoration projects to address
issues directly caused by drought and voluntary system conservation projects that provide
environmental benefits in the Colorado River Basin, among others.

Section 60301 appropriated $125 mil ion to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop and
implement Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §1533(f)) recovery plans.

Section 60302 appropriated $125 mil ion to FWS to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and state wildlife management areas by specified means, including addressing the threat of
invasive species.
Source: CRS, using enacted laws.
Notes: Reclamation state means a state or territory described in the first section of the Reclamation Act of 1902
(32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093; 43 U.S.C. §391), as amended.
Congress may consider how quickly and efficiently federal agencies implement or obligate these
funds. Responding to stressors affecting ecosystems (e.g., climate change, invasive species, water
quality deterioration) is time sensitive in many regions. For example, projects to prevent invasive
species introduction can better preserve ecosystem function compared with responding to
invasive species after establishment. While some IIJA appropriations are available for a limited
number of fiscal years, other IIJA appropriations are to remain available until expended. Congress
may consider whether to rescind funding and/or transfer it to other priority if agencies are unable
to promptly or efficiently obligate funds to individual projects or if there is a lack of demand
and/or interest in some programs among nonfederal stakeholders.
Congress also may consider base-level funding for restoration activities in conjunction with IIJA
funds. At a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing, FS and DOI called IIJA investments
for their agencies a “down payment” on the funding that is needed for ecosystem restoration and
other initiatives, implying that base-level funding will be needed to supplement IIJA funding.14 In
some cases, the Administration is approaching IIJA funds as a supplement to base-level funding.
For example, the Administration’s FY2023 budget requested USACE funding for Everglades
construction at levels above previous years ($407 million requested for FY2023 compared with

14 U.S. Congress, House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands,
Oversight: Investing in Wildfire Management, Ecosystem Restoration, and Resilient Communities: Examining the
Biden Administration’s Priorities for Implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, hearing, April 5, 2022, at
https://naturalresources.house.gov/hearings/investing-in-wildfire-management-ecosystem-restoration-and-resilient-
communities-examining-the-biden-administrations-priorities-for-implementation-of-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-law
(hereinafter, House Natural Resources Committee, Oversight).
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 6 Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

$350 million requested for FY2022).15 In other cases, the Administration appears to replace base-
level funding with IIJA funds. For example, the Administration’s FY2023 budget request did not
include funding for NOAA’s National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, citing other funding
priorities and sufficient funds through the IIJA.16 The Administration’s differing approaches to
requesting base-line funding may reflect divergent spatial and temporal scales of restoration
needs across ecosystems, an agency’s level of prioritization and capacity for delivering ecosystem
restoration projects, or the Administration’s funding priorities compared with other activities.
Congress might consider how to measure whether and how IIJA funding would contribute to
ecosystem restoration and whether additional funding is needed to meet Congress’s restoration
goals.
One of the challenges to how the IIJA gets implemented is whether nonfederal entities can be
effective partners, especially for programs that involve grants and/or cooperative agreements.
Nonfederal partnership may be limited due to lack of interest in restoration opportunities, limited
capacity to track and apply for funds, inability to provide applicable cost shares, or limited
capacity to implement activities with IIJA funds. To address this challenge, some agencies, such
as NOAA, intend to use a portion of IIJA funds to help applicants build capacity to apply for
grants and implement projects.17 Others, such as FWS, identify the inability for nonfederal
partners to provide matching funds as an implementation challenge to “the ability to increase and
expand partnerships through the many authorities provided to the Agency” because “match
requirements create a huge challenge for many partners, inhibiting their ability to participate in
the opportunities that ...[the IIJA] provides.”18 This could mean that federal agencies would limit
activities where there is insufficient funding from a nonfederal sponsor.
In certain provisions, Congress provided options in the IIJA to address challenges to providing
nonfederal cost-share funding for some programs. For example, Congress omitted cost-share
requirements and provided full federal funding for nonfederal dam removal under USACE’s
Section 206 Continuing Authorities Program and authorized some agencies to reduce or waive the
nonfederal share for IIJA funding under NOAA’s Operations, Research, and Facilities Account
and Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and the Environmental Protection Agency’s
geographic programs and National Estuary Program grants.19 In certain instances, the IIJA has
allowed for agency discretion regarding cost sharing; for some NOAA grant programs funded by
the IIJA, the agency has determined that a match is not required but has noted that leveraged
funding is strongly encouraged and will be reviewed in evaluations.20

15 See request in USACE press books located at USACE, “Civil Works Budget and Performance,” at
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/.
16 NOAA’s blue book stated that not funding the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund (NCRF) would “allow
NOAA to sustain other key priorities across the agency” and that “NOAA will continue to maintain its NCRF
partnership with ...[the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation] using the significant funding received under the
FY2022 Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA) through FY2026.” NOAA, Budget Summary FY2023, at
https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Final_FY23_NOAA_Blue_Book.pdf.
17 For example, NOAA’s FY2022 Coastal Habitat Restoration and Resilience Grants for Underserved Communities
funding opportunity “intends to support capacity building and restoration project activities,” including project planning,
stakeholder engagement, and proposal development for future funding, among other aims (NOAA, “FY22 Coastal
Habitat Restoration and Resilience Grants for Underserved Communities, Under the IIJA: Notice of Funding
Opportunity,” at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=341531).
18 FWS Spend Plan.
19 All NOAA entries in Table 1 were funded under NOAA’s Operations, Research, and Facilities Account except for
the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which is funded by its own account.
20 NOAA, Office for Coastal Management, “Funding Opportunities,” at https://coast.noaa.gov/funding/
Congressional Research Service

25

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

Congress also might consider whether some new or reauthorized programs in the IIJA that
address ecosystem restoration should receive funding through other appropriations legislation.
For example, DOT’s Pollinator-Friendly Practices on Roadsides and Highway Rights-of-Way
Program or Invasive Plant Elimination Program did not receive appropriations in the IIJA.
Congress may choose to appropriate funds for these programs in the current fiscal year or in
future fiscal years.
Ecosystem Restoration Progress and Reporting
Congress has expressed interest in understanding how well activities authorized and funded by
the IIJA are restoring ecosystems. For example, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands conducted a hearing in which the chairman stated that
some of the primary IIJA implementation questions for the committee include “evaluating the
adequacy of these investments, in the context of annual appropriations, measuring success beyond
board feet and acres treated, and assessing if additional investments; workforce, policy changes,
may be necessary.”21 Congress may consider conducting oversight activities on the restoration
progress, project implementation, and effectiveness of restoration programs authorized and
funded under the IIJA.22 A broad approach to oversight might be challenging due to the variety of
activities and agencies involved in ecosystem restoration under the IIJA. Further, some programs
that directly focus on ecosystem restoration may have a straightforward means of evaluating
restoration activities, whereas other activities that affect ecosystem restoration indirectly may be
harder to evaluate. For example, the IIJA provides billions of dollars for orphan well site
remediation and abandoned mine reclamation; however, ecosystem restoration is a generally
tertiary objective of these programs.23 It is unclear if ecosystem restoration for these types of
activities is measured or reported. Congress might consider requiring agencies to track ecosystem
restoration activities in programs in which these activities are not the primary or even secondary
purpose. For example, Congress could require agencies to discuss ecosystem restoration benefits
of projects in annual reports or budget justifications to Congress.
The IIJA contains reporting and oversight directives that vary across agencies and activities but
no general oversight provisions addressing the entire law.24 For example, the law directed many

infrastructure.html.
21 House Natural Resources Committee, Oversight.
22 In general, Congress’s authority to conduct oversight comes from the Constitution and is informed by Supreme Court
decisions, laws, and House and Senate rules. Oversight ranges from formal committee hearings to informal Member
contacts with executive officials; from staff studies to reviews by congressional support agencies; and from casework
conducted by Member offices to studies prepared by non-congressional entities, such as academic institutions, private
commissions, or think tanks. Congress also exercises oversight through the appropriations process, which provides the
opportunity to assess agency and departmental expenditures. For a more complete overview of Congress’s oversight
activities and authorities, see CRS Report RL30240, Congressional Oversight Manual, coordinated by Christopher M.
Davis, Todd Garvey, and Ben Wilhelm.
23 For example, Section 403 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C. §1231) directs the
prioritization of abandoned mine lands (AML) reclamation projects under a tier of three categories of which priority 3
projects involve the reclamation of lands and waters previously degraded by adverse effects of coal mining practices
for the conservation and development of soil, water (excluding channelization), woodland, fish and wildlife, recreation
resources, and agricultural productivity. Generally, priority 3 projects may address AML reclamation projects where
“ecosystem restoration” may be the primary objective, although the law does not define ecosystem restoration. Under
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, priority 3 AML projects are required to be prioritized as a lower
priority than priority 1 and priority 2 AML projects, which address AML projects associated with public health and
safety issues.
24 In contrast to the IIJA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) included general
oversight provisions, such as establishment of a Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. For more
Congressional Research Service

26

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

agencies that received IIJA appropriations to report spend plans for FY2022 appropriations and
subsequent years to the House and Senate appropriations committees.25 The IIJA also directed
some of these agencies (e.g., USACE, Bureau of Reclamation) to provide monthly reports on the
allocation and obligation of these funds to House and Senate appropriations committees.26 In
addition, the law required a percentage of DOI’s and other agencies’ appropriations (e.g., FS,
EPA) to be transferred to the Office of Inspector General of that agency or department to conduct
oversight of IIJA funding. Some federal agencies have stated their commitment to providing
information on spending for IIJA projects. For example, at a House Natural Resources
subcommittee hearing on IIJA funding, the FS indicated that it aims to track and be transparent
about funding from the IIJA.27 Congress might consider directing all agencies to track and report
restoration projects funded by the IIJA. This would give Congress data on how funds are being
spent on restoration and allow Members to evaluate whether restoration projects are providing the
“biggest bang for the buck.” Some stakeholders may push back on this approach, asserting that
additional reporting could be burdensome for agencies.
Another oversight challenge for Congress is waiting for restoration programs to ramp up and be
ready to fund projects and engage stakeholders. Congress might not know results from restoration
programs until after the five-year funding cycle has finished. This may not allow Congress
sufficient time to adjust or modify programs during the funding cycle. Some new restoration
programs may need time to establish guidelines or regulations for their implementation. Further,
some nonfederal stakeholders might need to add institutional capacity and resources to apply for
grants.28 In some cases, the time to ramp up could result in delays in implementation and use of
funds for the programs, which was the case for some new programs established and funded by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).29 For example, the IIJA
authorized and funded Reclamation’s new Multi-benefit Watershed Health Improvement
Program, and the IIJA provided the first appropriations for Reclamation’s Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program (authorized in P.L. 116-260). The agency’s spend plan first provides
program-specific allocations to these programs in FY2023 after developing plans to implement
these programs in FY2022.30 Congress might consider funneling IIJA funds exclusively through
existing programs to reduce administrative overhead, avoid new procedural requirements, and
expedite project implementation. Some federal agencies are taking the lead in applying this

information, see CRS Report R40572, General Oversight Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA): Requirements and Related Issues, by Clinton T. Brass.
25 For example, for appropriations provided in Division J to NOAA’s Operations, Research, and Facilities account that
funds many of the agency’s restoration-related activities, the IIJA directed NOAA to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a detailed spend plan for FY2022 funding no later than 90 days after enactment and to
submit detailed spend plans for FY2023 through FY2026 as part of the President’s annual budget submission.
26 For example, for appropriations provided in Division J of the IIJA to USACE’s Investigation and Construction
accounts that may fund ecosystem restoration studies and construction projects, the law directs USACE to provide a
monthly report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations beginning no later than 120 days after
enactment detailing the allocation and obligation of these funds, including for new studies and construction projects.
27 House Natural Resources Committee, Oversight.
28 Testimony of Jim Tymon, executive director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Putting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to
Work: The State and Local Perspective, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., September 21, 2022.
29 See section on “Characteristics of Infrastructure Funding Can Affect Expenditure Timing,” in CRS Report R46343,
Transportation Infrastructure Investment as Economic Stimulus: Lessons from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, by William J. Mallett.
30 Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation Implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, FY2023 Spend
Plan, at https://www.usbr.gov/bil/docs/spendplan-2023/FY-2023-Reclamation-BIL-Spend-Plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 6 Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

approach. For example, NOAA used some IIJA funds to establish new grant opportunities within
existing programs to disburse funds.31
The IIJA contains some reporting requirements that might facilitate congressional oversight. For
example, the IIJA directed some agencies to provide a detailed report one year after enactment on
certain programs, such as the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Program and the
Department of Transportation’s new Wildlife Crossing Pilot Program.32 In other examples, the
IIJA required annual reporting on progress and future ecosystem needs for some programs.33
Further, the law required a Government Accountability Office study no later than six years after
enactment to evaluate the progress of initiatives authorized in Division D, Title VIII of the IIJA.34
Congress may use these reports and studies to conduct oversight on new and existing programs
and activities. For example, in August 2022, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General summarized
findings from 49 prior EPA and GAO reports on EPA’s geographic programs and the National
Estuary Program to inform future restoration efforts, such as those funded by the IIJA.35 Congress
might also consider whether these reports might have specific sections and analyses that measure
and evaluate the progress of ecosystem restoration. Sections could discuss how effective funding
provided by the IIJA has led to ecosystem restoration; how well agencies are meeting objectives
Congress established in the IIJA and other authorities for ecosystem restoration; and the status of
restoration project implementation.
In addition to the policy mechanisms within the law, Congress might consider amending the law
to include additional policy tools to improve oversight capacity. For example, Congress might
consider directing a federal agency to establish a centralized website to describe, locate, and track
the progress of IIJA projects. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has a web-based map that
geo-locates projects and provides project descriptions and funding information. Further, some
stakeholders suggested the federal government, with leadership from the U.S. Geological Survey
and in conjunction with nonfederal partners, develop a geospatial tool to support multiagency
decisionmaking regarding where to allocate funding to maximize and enhance project outcomes
and to monitor project implementation and long-term project efficacy.36 Specific to ecosystem
restoration, Congress might consider directing a federal agency to establish a science office to
measure the progress of restoration activities authorized or funded by the IIJA. Under some
ecosystem restoration initiatives, science offices or federal agencies assess how restoration is

31 For example, NOAA established the Transformational Habitat Restoration and Coastal Resilience Grants and Coastal
Habitat Restoration and Resilience Grants for Underserved Communities to be disbursed by the existing Office of
Habitat Conservation’s Restoration Center (NOAA, “Habitat Restoration,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law/
infrastructure-law-climate-ready-coasts/habitat-restoration).
32 See Section 40808(g) of the IIJA for reporting requirements for the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership
Program and Section 11123(b) for reporting requirements for DOT’s new Wildlife Crossing Pilot Program.
33 For example, Section 70303 established annual reporting requirements for the Repairing Existing Public Land by
Adding Necessary Trees Act (Division G, Title III of the IIJA; see the NFS Reforestation Requirements and the
Reforestation Trust Fund entry in Table 1).
34 Section 40805, Division D, Title VIII of the IIJA is titled “Natural Resources-Related Infrastructure, Wildfire
Management, and Ecosystem Restoration” and includes evaluating numerous entries in Table 1: FS Legacy Road and
Trail Remediation Program, Study and Report on Feasibility of Revegetating Reclaimed Mine Sites, FS and DOI
Wildfire Risk Reduction, FS and DOI Ecosystem Restoration, and Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership
Program.
35 EPA, Report: Lessons Identified from Prior Oversight of the EPA’s Geographic and National Estuary Programs,
August 8, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general/report-lessons-identified-prior-oversight-epas-
geographic-and-national.
36 “Conservation Considerations.”
Congressional Research Service

28

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

progressing by measuring ecosystem health. For example, EPA collaborates with Environment
and Climate Change Canada to provide a report on the ecosystem health of the Salish Sea.37
Many IIJA ecosystem restoration activities will be implemented by nonfederal partners that are in
charge of operations, maintenance, and monitoring after project completion.38 Congress may
consider how to require federal agencies to ensure monitoring and to evaluate performance of
nonfederal partners.39 Congress also may consider an independent scientific review of ecosystem
restoration addressed by the IIJA. For example, the National Academy of Sciences independently
reviews ecosystem restoration in the Florida Everglades on a biennial basis. The National
Academy Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress
evaluates the progress of restoration in the Everglades and reports on scientific and engineering
issues that might hinder progress.40

Author Information

Anna E. Normand, Coordinator
Laura Gatz
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Pervaze A. Sheikh, Coordinator
Lance N. Larson
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Katie Hoover
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural

Resources Policy

Eva Lipiec
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

37 For example, see EPA, Health of the Salish Sea System Ecosystem Report, at https://www.epa.gov/salish-sea.
38 For example, FWS states that for some of its programs, monitoring plans will be required as part of project proposals
and selected projects will be required to implement those monitoring plans. These plans will track progress during and
after the proposed project period to ensure project success and adaptively address new challenges and opportunities as
they arise. FWS Spend Plan.
39 For example, after enactment of ARRA, the House passed H.R. 2182, which among other measures, would have
allowed state and local governments receiving ARRA funds to set aside an amount up to 0.5% of those funds to
conduct planning and oversight to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse.
40 For the eighth report, see National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Independent Scientific Review
of Everglades Restoration Progress VIII, at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/independent-scientific-
review-of-everglades-restoration-progress-viii.
Congressional Research Service

29

Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

Disclaimer
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
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
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
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
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47263 · VERSION 1 · NEW
30