Summary
Dam owners and other stakeholders sometimes consider dam removal as a policy option to address dam safety, ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. For example, dams often affect ecosystem processes and aquatic species mobility; these effects may be costly to mitigate and may prompt consideration of dam removal. The National Inventory of Dams (NID) lists more than 91,000 dams in the United States, many of which function as part of the nation's water infrastructure and provide benefits such as flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation, navigation, and water supply. According to a database that tracks dam removals maintained by the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization American Rivers, over 2,000 dams were removed in the United States from 1912 to 2022, with over 40% of those removed from 2013 to 2022. Small, nonfederal dams accounted for most of these removals; removal of federally owned or regulated dams was less frequent during the 1912-2022 period (e.g., approximately 80 of the dams removed since 1912 were federally owned).
Dam removal is a multistep process. The decision to remove a dam usually starts with the dam owner's consideration. 97% of dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or public utilities; the federal government owns 3% of dams listed in the NID. Stakeholders—such as communities, policymakers, river-dependent industries (e.g., barge companies), tribes, nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and academics, among others—also may participate in the dam removal consideration process. Dam removal may be one potential option among other alternatives to address specific concerns relating to the dam. Alternatives to dam removal may include changes to dam operations, dam rehabilitation or repair, modifications to add or improve fish passage, or a "no action" option.
The federal government's role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus nonfederal), purpose (e.g., federally regulated hydropower facilities), location (e.g., a nonfederal dam on federal land), and other factors. Federal law and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal agencies for a proposed dam removal project. Such involvement may include the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a National Environmental Policy Act review process, and consultations with government agencies to meet requirements of federal laws. The Federal Power Act regulates nonfederal hydropower projects. The relicensing process under this authority has in some cases spurred consideration of dam removal.
The congressional role in removal of a federal dam typically depends on whether Congress authorized the dam. For federally owned dams that Congress authorized for specific purposes, such as dams owned and operated by USACE and the Bureau of Reclamation, removal generally requires specific congressional authorization following a feasibility study that selects dam removal as the preferred alternative. By contrast, other federal agencies generally may remove federally owned dams at their discretion without specific congressional authorization, based on agency policies and in adherence to state and federal law. For example, federal land management agencies may consider removal of dams that they manage when seeking to reduce operation and safety costs or when pursing restoration initiatives. At times, Congress has considered prohibiting removal of certain federal dams.
The federal government is sometimes involved in the removal of nonfederal dams. Although there is no underlying statutory authority for federal involvement in nonfederal dam removal, Congress has authorized involvement in some individual dam removals when it found a compelling reason to do so, often due to a federal nexus (e.g., proximity to federal land or project, tribal responsibilities, listed species concerns). Additionally, Congress has authorized programs that provide support (e.g., grants, loans, technical assistance) to address issues including dam safety, flooding risks, fish and wildlife passage, and watershed restoration. Some of these efforts may facilitate or result in nonfederal dam removal.
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), an omnibus authorization and appropriations act, included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal. Congress may consider the federal government's role in studying and executing specific projects for dam removal and whether to change the level of appropriations for new or existing programs that fund dam removal activities. In addition, Congress may oversee agency implementation of new or amended authorities for dam removal and may review the effectiveness, efficiency, and priorities of agencies funding dam removal activities.
Introduction
Dams can provide benefits to society, such as flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation, navigation, and water supply. However, some dams may no longer provide benefits for which they were built (e.g., dams that supported mills) or may be abandoned and in disrepair. Dams often affect ecosystem processes and aquatic species mobility; efforts to mitigate these impacts (e.g., fish ladders) may be costly for dam owners. Maintaining dam operation and safety also entails financial costs for operation and maintenance, rehabilitation (i.e., bringing a dam up to current safety standards), and repair. For these reasons and others, dam removal is a policy option to address safety, ecosystem restoration, or other concerns.
The federal government's involvement in dam removal varies based on whether the federal government owns the dam, pertinent federal law and associated regulations related to the dam and removal activities, and availability of appropriations that may fund dam removal activities. Recent Congresses have provided new authorities, expanded existing authorities, and increased funding for dam removal activities, particularly for nonfederal dam removal projects. One example is the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), which included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal. In more limited cases, Congress has authorized and funded specific dam removal projects, including those involving federal dams and federally regulated dams. Congress also has debated whether to prohibit dam removal projects.
The nonprofit industry organization United States Society on Dams defines a dam removal project to include all necessary activities associated with the full or partial removal of a dam and restoration of the river, from project planning and permitting through design and implementation.1 Analysis of the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization American Rivers' Dam Removal Database shows an increase in dam removal in the last 10-year period of record compared with the previous two 10-year periods of record: 819 dams removed between 2013 and 2022, 554 dams removed between 2003 and 2012, and 254 dams removed between 1993 and 2002.2 The benefits and detriments of a dam are case-specific, and the feasibility of dam removal often relies on an evaluation of tradeoffs. Dam owners and other stakeholders may participate in the evaluation process; stakeholders may include communities, policymakers, river-dependent industries, major water users, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and academics, among others.
The federal government's role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus nonfederal), purpose (e.g., federally regulated hydropower), location (e.g., federal land), and other factors. This report discusses the U.S. portfolio of dams, dam removal trends, and tradeoffs when considering the consequences of dam removal. It also addresses federal authorities, regulatory requirements, and assistance for dam removal (the Appendix lists selected federal resources for nonfederal dam removal). In addition, it provides examples of prior federal involvement in dam removal projects. Finally, the report concludes with some considerations for Congress on the federal role in dam removal.
Dams and Dam Removal in the United States
Dams and their associated structures range in size, design, purpose, ownership, age, potential risk, and current condition. These factors are important considerations when determining future management options for dams, including the option of removal. Most dam removal projects in the United States have been for small, nonfederal dams; in many cases, these projects may not be illustrative of the challenges and tradeoffs inherent in removal of larger dams.3 In recent years, some hydropower companies and interested parties have agreed to remove larger dams as part of decommissioning Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed hydropower projects, such as the Potter Valley Project and Klamath Hydroelectric Project.4 Where dam removal has been pursued, considerations in favor of doing so have included benefits such as the potential for ecosystem restoration and improved dam safety (i.e., prevention of full or partial dam failure), as well as the possibility of replacing benefits provided by dams by other means, among other issues. Opponents of some dam removals cite their potential to lessen or eliminate existing benefits, such as energy generation, water supply, and flood risk reduction, or their potential to release accumulated sediments or impact associated infrastructure.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains the National Inventory of Dams (NID), a database of dams in the United States.5 The NID defines a dam as any artificial barrier with the ability to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid-borne material for the purpose of storage or control of water that (1) is at least 25 feet in height, with a storage capacity of more than 15 acre-feet; (2) is greater than 6 feet in height, with a storage capacity of at least 50 acre-feet; or (3) poses a significant threat to human life or property should it fail (i.e., high- or significant-hazard potential dams).6 Thousands of dams across the United States do not meet these criteria and are not included in the NID. As of January 2, 2024, the NID included 91,894 dams.
Most dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or public utilities. The federal government owns 3% of dams included in the NID.7 States have regulatory authority for more than 71% of NID-listed dams. Federal agencies regulate dams associated with hydropower projects, certain mining activities, and nuclear facilities and materials.8
The most common type of dam is an earthen dam, which is made from natural soil or rock, while some dams are made primarily of concrete. Some dams create reservoirs, which store water for various uses. Other dams that have limited storage, or pondage, are called run-of-the-river dams.9 (This report does not cover levees, which are man-made structures designed to control water movement along a landscape.) Dams have various purposes: recreation; flood control; fish and wildlife management; municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply; hydroelectric power generation; navigation; mining, and others.10 Some dams serve specialized purposes, such as tailings dams that store mining byproducts, overflow dams that regulate downstream flow, and dikes at a low point of a reservoir of water.11 Some dams serve multiple purposes.
Nearly half of dams listed in the NID–over 43,000—were built between 1950 and 1980.12 After this period, construction of new dams slowed; the NID lists 4,850 dams built since 2000. Given that dams are built to the engineering and construction standards and regulations that apply at the time of their construction, some dams may not meet current dam safety standards, which have evolved over time as scientific data and engineering have improved.13 These older dams may not operate properly or may be vulnerable to failure due to certain flooding and seismic events that are now known to be possible at a given site based on improved understanding of weather and flood data, such as probable maximum flood, and seismic data.
Federal guidelines set a hazard potential rating to quantify the potential harm associated with a dam's failure or misoperation.14 The three hazard ratings (low, significant, and high potential) do not indicate the likelihood of failure; rather, the ratings reflect the amount and type of damage a failure could cause
Of the dams listed in the NID, 18% are classified as high hazard potential.15 Since 2000, thousands of dams have been reclassified, increasing the number of high hazard potential dams from 9,921 to 16,598.16 According to FEMA, the primary factor increasing the hazard potential of dams is development upstream and/or downstream of a dam.17 Reclassification from low hazard potential to high or significant hazard potential may trigger more stringent requirements by regulatory agencies, such as increased spillway capacity, structural improvements, more frequent inspections, and requirements to create or update an emergency action plan.
The NID also includes condition assessments—assessments of relative dam deficiencies determined from inspections—as reported by state agencies.18 As of January 2, 2024, 15% of the nonfederal high hazard potential dams listed in the NID had a poor or unsatisfactory condition assessment and 20% were not rated.19
Removal of dams in the United States has occurred primarily for environmental, dam safety, and economic reasons.20 These dam removal projects have been driven by local coalitions of nonprofit organizations, community groups, and government agencies. Most dam removals have involved small, nonfederal dams, including run-of-the-river dams, with costs ranging from thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars.21 Fewer federally owned or regulated dams have been removed.
According to the American Rivers' Dam Removal Database, which tracks dam removals, over 2,000 dams were removed in the United States from 1912 to 2022.22 Due to reporting challenges, particularly for the early 20th century, this database is likely incomplete.23 Of those dams listed in the database, approximately 80 were federally owned. Of these federally owned dams, 55 were U.S. Forest Service (FS) dams removed between 2015 and 2022. Although a majority of existing dams listed within the NID are concentrated in the Plains states and the Southeast, most dam removals have occurred elsewhere. According to the Dam Removal Database, Pennsylvania has removed the most dams of any state (367); California has removed the second-largest number (181), with nearly half of these from the Cleveland National Forest;24 and Wisconsin has removed the third-largest number (158), with assistance from a long-running state grant program for dam removal.25 In 2022, 65 dams were removed across 20 states, with the most dam removals in Ohio (11), Pennsylvania (10), and Virginia (6).26 A 2018 study projected the removal of thousands of NID dams by 2050.27
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also has developed an online site called the Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP) that provides a map-based visualization of dam removal information and associated scientific studies.28 A 2017 review found studies that assess the physical and ecological responses of rivers to dam removals have occurred at less than 10% of dam removals. Most of these studies were conducted over fewer than four years and often without pre-removal monitoring.29 Such studies may provide less information than studies designed for long-term monitoring and comparison between pre-dam removal and post-dam removal.
Considerations for Dam Removal
Dams may be removed for various reasons. Many dams continue to operate beyond their design lives. If these dams are not properly maintained and rehabilitated as necessary, safety issues may arise or sediment buildup in their associated reservoirs may affect their performance.30 In some cases, a dam's original purposes are no longer necessary. In other cases, dam removal may provide environmental benefits. Dam removal may be a viable option when the existing benefits (e.g., hydropower) lost by removing a dam or reservoir could be achieved through alternative means (e.g., other sources of power). However, some existing benefits that dams provide, such as water storage and flood control, may be difficult to replace.31
Most dam removals have been in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and western coastal states.32 Dams removed in the Northeast tend to be dams with safety issues after decades or centuries of inadequate maintenance or dams that no longer serve their initial purpose, such as powering mills. The concentration of dam removals in the Pacific Northwest may be due to concerns over endangered species and tribal culture affected by dams, as well as to companies choosing to decommission dams rather than invest in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing requirements, such as fish passage construction.
Dam removal may be one potential option among other alternatives to address specific concerns relating to the dam. Alternatives to dam removal may include changes to dam operations, dam rehabilitation or repair, modifications to add or improve fish passage, or a "no action" option.33 In some cases, specific concerns can be addressed by partial removal of the dam rather than by full removal of the dam and associated facilities.
Identifying and assessing potential dam removal projects involves consideration of diverse tradeoffs that may vary in relevance and importance based on the type of dam, the landscape of the dam, and the stakeholders involved.34 Factors in a decision to pursue a dam removal project also depend in part on the type of dam ownership (e.g., federal government, nonfederal government, private, or abandoned). Below are tradeoffs that owners and other stakeholders may evaluate when considering dam removal.
Fish Passage, Aquatic Migration, and Fisheries
A dam may hinder or prevent the passage of anadromous fish (e.g., salmon) and other aquatic species.35 Blocked passage may affect migration upstream to historic spawning or nursery grounds and downstream during various seasons important to fish migration.36
Fish passage can be a key environmental factor for fish species and is often cited as a primary consideration for dam removal, especially for dams affecting species listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544).37 Fish passage alternatives for large dams, such as fish ladders or trap-and-haul operations, can be expensive and may be less effective than restoring more natural fish passage by dam removal.38 Dam removal may rejuvenate certain riverine fisheries near and upstream of the former dam location; however, if there is another dam downstream of the removed dam, fish migration may remain limited.39
Although dam removal may benefit riverine species, it may jeopardize recreational fisheries for species supported by the reservoir habitat created by the dam.40 Further, reservoirs created by dams may provide reliable fish refuge habitat under reduced rainfall and flow conditions in regions where climate change may be affecting precipitation trends or where water withdrawals have affected water levels.41 In addition, a dam may provide a beneficial impediment to aquatic species migration, such as in the case of exotic or invasive species that could negatively impact surrounding populations of native or managed fish species.42
Waters impounded by a dam may result in a lake-like habitat of warmer water or stratified water temperatures, while dam removal may result in more free-flowing cold water habitat found in undammed riverine environments.43 In addition to lower water temperatures, dam removal may result in increased dissolved oxygen and improved aquatic habitat diversity and availability.44 For example, dam removal may lead to revegetation of the formerly inundated areas, which can result in the creation or restoration of riparian buffers or flood plain wetlands beneficial for birds and other terrestrial species. Dam removal projects also may include planting programs and erosion protection measures to accelerate desired revegetation, preserve water quality, and prevent dust hazards.45 Although limited studies on dam removal have provided evidence that dammed ecosystems return to riverine conditions following dam removal, the studies also show that the post-dam ecosystem may not necessarily be the same as the pre-dam ecosystem.46
Sedimentation behind a dam may require intensive dam maintenance or may diminish the dam's benefits because it reduces the water storage capacity of the associated reservoir over time.47 Dam removal may reestablish the natural sediment transport and deposition that occurred prior to dam installation. However, sediment management also may represent a significant portion of the total dam removal project cost because sediment release following dam removal may affect downstream conditions.48 The sudden release of fine and coarse sediments may, at least temporarily, increase the suspended sediment concentration, possibly creating lethal conditions for fish. This may result in sediment deposition along the downstream channel, where there may be fish spawning beds. If coarse sediment is deposited along a channel, river water surface elevations may increase and affect flood stages.49
In addition, the potential of sediment being contaminated with potentially toxic concentrations of mineral or organic chemicals (e.g., mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) is a consideration for a dam removal project.50 If removing a dam releases impounded sediments that may be contaminated at levels above background levels for the river system, then those sediments may need to be removed or contained to prevent downstream contamination. These mitigation measures also may increase the cost of a dam removal project.
Dam owners are responsible for meeting relevant regulatory requirements related to dam safety.51 Deficient dams may fail due to floods, earthquakes, progressive deterioration, or lack of maintenance. Dam failure can pose a risk to life and property, as well as a loss of dam benefits. Dam owners may address dam safety concerns through measures other than dam removal, both through nonstructural measures, such as lowering water storage, and structural measures, such as rehabilitation and repair.52 In some instances, the safety of abandoned dams becomes the responsibility of federal, state, or local government agencies; in these cases, dam removal and site restoration to ensure public safety may be a desirable alternative to taking over legal ownership.53 Outside of potential structural concerns, dams also may pose public safety hazards, such as hazardous currents, to recreational users.54
Conversely, removing a dam may increase the potential flood risks to downstream areas by removing a structure that reduces flood risk.55 In some cases, partial dam removal may be a compromise to reduce downstream hazard potential from dam failure while retaining some of the dam's flood control capacity. Otherwise, alternative flood risk reduction measures may need to be implemented or constructed in conjunction with dam removal to provide protection from uncontrolled high flows no longer regulated by the dam.
A decision to pursue dam removal can be driven by the costs of ongoing maintenance, the need for dam safety rehabilitation or repairs, or ecosystem mitigation required because of effects of the dam on living resources. These costs may exceed the dam's benefits, particularly if the dam is no longer serving its original designed purpose (e.g., hydropower). For example, regulatory agencies may require modifications, such as the construction and operation of fish passage structures or structural modifications to accommodate larger floods or stronger earthquakes.56 Costs of these modification may exceed overall costs for dam removal by the owner.
The cost of dam removal varies based on numerous factors. A 2023 study found that dam height, annual average discharge of water at the dam site, and project complexity were the predominant drivers of removal cost.57 One stakeholder group estimated that, keeping all other factors constant, the cost of dam removal increases by 10% as dam height increases by 10%. Concrete and cement dams have higher removal costs than earthen dams.58
Dam removal considerations also include (1) who will pay for dam removal, (2) who will pay compensation for lost benefits of the dam and reservoir, and (3) who will be compensated for those lost benefits.59 These issues may limit whether and when dam removal will move forward, even when the owner and other stakeholders agree to remove a dam. Dam removal projects with unforeseen complications (e.g., projects involving contaminated sediments) could add expenses beyond original estimates and may require supplemental funding. Some states, nongovernment organizations, and companies have provided funding for dam removal, including for abandoned dams.60 In some cases, the federal government has provided funding for dam removal.61
Benefits and Associated Value of Operating Dams
Dam removal may affect the benefits provided by the dam, such as hydropower, agricultural production, recreation, nearby property values, and cultural history. Considerations may include whether those benefits would remain after dam removal, perhaps through alternate means, or whether stakeholders would be compensated for lost benefits.62
Federal Role and Resources for Dam Removal
The federal government's involvement in dam removal varies based on dam ownership, regulations and required permitting related to the dam and removal activities, and availability of federal assistance for dam removal. Removal of federal dams that were authorized by Congress for specific purposes, such as those managed and operated by some federal agencies (e.g., USACE, the Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation]), in most cases requires specific congressional authorization.77 Federal agencies that manage federally owned dams that lack specific congressionally authorized purposes may exercise their discretion to remove these dams, in adherence to agency policy and state and federal law.
The Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c) provides the statutory authority for the regulation of nonfederal hydropower projects that usually include dams. Federal agencies may be involved in most nonfederal dam removal projects as part of the overall regulatory process, though federal regulations may not apply to some projects. Congress also has authorized programs that may aid in nonfederal dam removal and, in limited cases, has authorized and funded federal involvement for specific nonfederal dam removal projects.78
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Federal law and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal agencies for a proposed dam removal project.79 The following are selected federal laws that commonly require federal agency regulatory actions for dam removal projects.
Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act
Most dam removal projects require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. §1344).80 USACE may issue two types of Section 404 permits for a dam removal project: (1) individual permits or (2) general permits, including nationwide permits (NWPs). Larger, more complex projects may be reviewed under the individual permit process, whereas general permits, such as NWPs, or regional permits may be issued for smaller, less complex dam removals.81 In January 2017, USACE published a new NWP specifically for low-head dam removal.82
In conjunction with a CWA Section 404 permit, most dam removal projects also require a Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) Section 10 permit from USACE for activities affecting a navigable waterway (33 U.S.C. §403).83
National Environmental Policy Act
A proposed project with dam removal as an alternative that qualifies as a major federal action will trigger a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) review process.84 The most common types of actions that would trigger NEPA review include consideration of removing a federally owned dam or a dam on federal land, the process to surrender a FERC hydropower project license, application for a CWA Section 404 permit, and use of federal funds for a dam removal project.
Under NEPA, a dam removal project could trigger three actions: (1) federal issuance of a categorical exclusion (CATEX), (2) development of an environmental assessment (EA), or (3) development of an environmental impact statement (EIS).85 The level of effort, review time, and public comment period vary depending on the level of NEPA analysis required. Federal agency issuance of a CATEX exempts further analysis and documentation of the project in an EA or EIS.86 The development of an EA or EIS may require the federal agency to evaluate "no action" and other feasible alternatives and to conduct analyses to support conclusions regarding environmental impacts.87
Agencies may develop programmatic EAs and EISs for conducting environmental analyses of similar federal actions.88 For some comprehensive restoration projects across a landscape or watershed, a region-wide programmatic EA or EIS covering a suite of restoration techniques, including dam removal, may be pursued rather than addressing specific projects in individual EAs or EISs.89 If an NWP is used for a dam removal project, then no additional activities pursuant to NEPA requirements would be needed for issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit.90
As part of issuing permits or complying with NEPA, federal agencies, nonfederal regulatory agencies, or dam owners may need to consult with government agencies and tribes to meet the requirements of federal laws.91 The following are selected examples of consultations that are commonly required for dam removal projects.
In addition to these consultations, removal activities may require a state to issue a certification that actions are consistent with the state's implementation of federal law. For example, some dam removal activities require a water quality certification pursuant to CWA Section 401 (33 U.S.C. §1341) to ensure the proposed activity will not violate state water quality standards. Some removal projects also require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the state pursuant to CWA Section 402 (33 U.S.C. §1342), which sets conditions and effluent limitations under which a facility may discharge potential pollutants into navigable waters of the United States.96 If the dam is located in a coastal zone, the state must issue a certification pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.) stating that the proposed activity is consistent with the state's approved coastal zone management plan.97
Federal dams are owned by the federal government and managed by one or more federal agencies. According to the NID, federal agencies managed 2,844 federally owned dams, or 3% of the dams listed in the NID.98 Federally owned dams include dams that were constructed based on congressional authorizations specific to each dam (e.g., most dams managed by USACE and Reclamation) and dams that were constructed or acquired through broader authority not specific to an individual dam (e.g., most dams managed by federal land management agencies).99 For individually authorized dams, the authorizing statute for each dam or project including a dam provides the primary guidance for the dam's management to satisfy authorized purposes; subsequent acts may provide additional operating authority.100
Removal of Authorized Federal Dams
Removal of a federal dam that was constructed or acquired under a project-specific authority may require authorization by Congress.101 This process generally begins with a federal agency, such as USACE or Reclamation, conducting a study, under its authority, that considers various alternatives and environmental laws and regulations.102 If the agency selects removal as the preferred alternative, then it may recommend that Congress authorize removal.103 If Congress authorizes the agency recommendation, Congress also would need to appropriate funds to conduct dam removal, which would be used along with any required cost sharing from a nonfederal partner. For example, if a federal dam were removed under the authority for USACE aquatic ecosystem restoration (33 U.S.C. §2213), then the nonfederal cost share of the dam removal project would be 35%.104
Removal of a congressionally authorized dam has been rare.105 A study for removal of this type of dam would likely only take place if the dam is no longer serving its purpose (e.g., commercial navigation); the dam poses a safety threat; the dam is not competitive for dam safety modification funding; and/or dam removal may provide aquatic ecosystem benefits.106
In 2016, a court order in litigation by nonfederal groups over operations plans for dams in the Columbia River Basin required the federal government to consider as an alternative in its environmental review the possibility of removing four hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake River, WA, to improve fish passage.107 Ultimately, the federal government did not choose dam removal as its preferred alternative, in part because the dams still provide for multiple authorized purposes (e.g., navigation, hydroelectric power).108 However, after mediation between certain parties involved in the ongoing litigation, the parties requested and the court ordered, in February 2024, a five-year stay of the litigation.109 During that five-year period, the parties have stated an intention to implement a memorandum of understanding that includes commitments by the federal government to support a restoration initiative developed by tribal and state parties.110
Removal of Other Dams Managed by Federal Agencies
Federal agencies may remove dams that they manage and that were constructed or acquired without specific congressional authorization at the agencies' discretion, based on agency policies and in adherence to state and federal law.111 For example, federal land management agencies may pursue dam removal as an alternative to reduce costs for operation, maintenance, and safety work of dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition and/or to improve fish passage and watershed restoration.112 When evaluating such projects, the agencies determine if the action complies with their general authorities and is consistent with the planning document governing the management of that specific land unit. For example, in assessing dam removal activity in a national forest, FS would determine if dam removal is consistent with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), in part by meeting standards and guidelines found in the forest's land management plan.113
Funding for dam removal activities from federal land management agencies' appropriations may compete with funding needs for other facilities (e.g., roads, buildings). To the extent that federal land management agencies have deferred maintenance needs for dams they manage,114 dam removal as an option to address the deferred maintenance needs could be eligible for deferred maintenance funding provided in discretionary or mandatory appropriations. One such source of funding would be mandatory funds from the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund established by the Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152).115
|
Dams on Indian Lands The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for all dams on Indian lands, in accordance with the Indian Dams Safety Act of 1994, as amended (IDSA; P.L. 103-302; 25 U.S.C. §§3801 et seq.). BIA manages 126 dams listed in the National Inventory of Dams (NID) on Indian lands, in addition to unclassified dams not listed in the NID. (The agency reports that it is not aware of all low-hazard dams under its jurisdiction.) BIA has no policies and procedures specific to dam removal, likely because the IDSA does not authorize BIA to conduct dam removal. The IDSA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program within BIA to maintain dams identified under ISDA "in a satisfactory condition on a long-term basis," which could be interpreted as including dam removal as a maintenance option to address unsatisfactory conditions (25 U.S.C. §3803(a)). In testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2016, the BIA Director stated that the Tribal Safety of Dams Committee (authorized by 5 U.S.C. §3805) could consider recommendations addressing "the removal of dams in order to eliminate the safety hazards posed by deteriorating dams." Sources: DOI, Reports Required by The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, Title III, Subtitle A—Indian Dams Safety Subtitle B—Irrigation, April 15, 2017, Appendix A1. Testimony of BIA Director Michael Black, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, S. 2205, S. 2421, S. 2564, and S. 2717, hearing, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., April 13, 2016, S. Hrg. 114-326. |
Restricting Funding for Federal Dam Removal
At times, Congress has considered prohibiting federal agencies from using appropriations for activities related to the removal of certain federal dams. For example, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3144 (115th Congress) in 2018 to prevent any structural modification, action, study, or engineering plan that might have hindered electrical generation from the Federal Columbia River Power System or navigation along the Snake River unless authorized by Congress.116 The House of Representatives also passed a provision in H.R. 5895 (115th Congress) under Division A, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, that would have prohibited use of any funds provided by Division A to remove any federally owned or operated dam unless the removal was previously authorized by Congress. The Senate removed this provision prior to enactment of H.R. 5895. In 2021, the IIJA provided supplemental appropriations to certain agencies for dam removal projects that specifically excluded federal hydropower dams.117
Federal Involvement in Nonfederal Dam Removal
Some federal agencies are involved in removal of nonfederal dams. This involvement may consist of voluntary coordination, regulatory actions (including those discussed under "Statutory and Regulatory Requirements," above), and activities performed at the specific direction of Congress. Federal agencies also may provide technical and financial assistance for dam removal activities under more general authorities, such as those to address dam safety, flood risks, fish and wildlife passage, and watershed restoration.
Nonfederal Dams on Federal Land
The NID, as updated January 2, 2024, reports there are 1,914 nonfederal dams on federal lands.118 These dams are mostly located on Bureau of Land Management and FS land. Except for nonfederal hydropower projects on federal lands, Congress has not passed legislation providing most federal agencies with authorities for specifically regulating nonfederal dams, though some agencies may have policies outlining operating responsibilities established through agreements.119 For example, FS may allow nonfederal entities to use National Forest System lands for dams through an agreement called a special use authorization, which establishes the terms under which the authorized activity must be conducted.120 These agreements may end in various ways, such as through planned termination, voluntary termination by the holder, or agency termination or revocation due to noncompliance with the agreement's terms. Generally, upon agreement termination, the holder is responsible for removing improvements, including dams. If improvements have not been removed within the time allowed, they become government property and are considered agency-managed dams.
Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Projects Under the Federal Power Act
The FPA authorizes FERC to license new nonfederal hydropower projects, relicense existing projects, and provide oversight for all ongoing nonfederal projects.121 Licenses, which establish operating parameters for nonfederal hydropower projects, typically are issued for 30-50 years.122 As part of nonfederal hydropower projects, FERC has jurisdiction over more than 2,500 dams that together generate approximately 55,500 megawatts of hydropower capacity.123 In December 2023, FERC reported that 112 licensed projects (11% of the total licensed projects in 2023) are set to expire between FY2024 and FY2028.124 The relicensing process provides an opportunity to periodically reassess the relative benefits and impacts of hydropower projects.125
A hydropower project must adhere to several requirements to be relicensed. In the FPA, Congress gave certain conditioning and recommendation authorities to federal land management and resource agencies; BIA, representing Indian tribes; and state agencies. These authorities include the following:126
FERC can make various decisions once a relicense application has been filed. Following the filing of a license application, relevant agencies submit their recommendations and conditions. FERC considers the agencies' recommendations and incorporates the requirements into its final NEPA document, such as an EA or EIS. FERC then rules to grant the license with operating conditions or to deny the license; denial of the license could trigger decommissioning of the project and removal of its dam(s).128 FERC also has coordinated the licensing of several projects in a watershed with agreement among parties to remove some dams in the watershed for restoration purposes.129
In addition, FERC may approve or deny the surrender of a project license. A project licensee may choose to surrender a license for various reasons, such as that the project is no longer economical (e.g., due to mandatory conditions to construct fish passage or dam safety repairs).130 Once a licensee files an application to surrender, FERC reviews the application and issues an order approving or denying the request for surrender.131 FERC may prescribe conditions for disposing of project works and restoring project lands that FERC and relevant federal and state fish and wildlife agencies may require.132 Licenses may be surrendered only after fulfilling any obligations under the license order. Although some surrenders of nonfederal hydropower projects to date have included dam removal as part of the process, not all include dam removal as some licensees leave dams in place.133 In certain cases, FERC can terminate a license for specific reasons.134
Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal
Congress has authorized and funded various programs that may address dam safety, flood risks, fish passage, and watershed restoration; these programs may include dam removal, generally for nonfederal dams, as an eligible activity. For example, in 2020, Congress enacted a new authority for ecosystem restoration under Reclamation that may include funding the design, study, and construction to remove barriers to fish passage.135 As another example, in 2021, the IIJA included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal (see the gray box, below).136
This report's Appendix includes a table that provides information on selected federal assistance (e.g., grants, loan programs) for nonfederal dam removal that spans multiple departments and agencies (e.g., Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, and Homeland Security; Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]). Some of these agencies also may provide technical assistance specific to their expertise to nonfederal entities interested in pursuing dam removal. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Community-Based Restoration Program provides technical assistance to owners and stakeholders for various phases of a dam removal project: feasibility study, permitting and environmental compliance, project design, implementation, and monitoring.137 Other programs are available through public-private partnership organizations, such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program.138
|
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Nonfederal Dam Removal On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), an omnibus authorization and appropriations act, was signed into law. The IIJA included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal. Section 40804 authorized a new $80 million collaborative, landscape-scale restoration program for FY2022 through FY2026. Administered by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the program's aim is to restore water quality or fish passage. Under the program, the Secretaries are to solicit proposals for up to $5 million in funding for five-year projects to restore fish passage or water quality on federal and nonfederal land. Section 40901 also authorized $250 million for FY2022 through FY2026 for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the design, study, and construction of aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in accordance with 33 U.S.C. §2330c, which may include removing barriers to fish passage. Division J of the IIJA includes emergency appropriations that may fund dam removal, such as the following:
Notes: Some of the provisions above specify assistance for nonfederal dam removal. Other provisions do not specify eligibility based on dam ownership. Agencies that implement these provisions for dam removal are likely to assist most or exclusively with nonfederal dam removal. Not listed above is an IIJA appropriations provision specific to federal dam removal: $10 million for FY2022 through FY2026 for FS's Capital Improvement and Maintenance account for the removal of non-hydropower federal dams and for providing dam removal technical assistance. |
Natural Resource Damages Financial Assistance
In addition, dam removal activities may receive financial assistance from payments associated with natural resource damages.139 When a chemical or oil spill occurs, responsible parties may be liable for the cost of removal and remedial actions, as well as for natural resource damages.140 Responsible parties may be liable for natural resource damages under one or more federal laws, particularly the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq.) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. §§9601 et seq.). Federal agencies may act as trustees for the payments used for restoration efforts. In some cases, payments for natural resource damages have supported dam removals as part of restorative actions to compensate for damages.141 For example, officials from NOAA, FWS, and Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection designated dam removal projects as part of a series of Housatonic River watershed projects funded by a 1999 legal settlement involving natural resource damages.142
In addition to liability for natural resource damages, parties responsible for chemical or oil spills may be subject to civil penalties for violations under CERCLA and CWA. Enforcement actions involving these violations may include supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), which are projects that provide benefits that a party may voluntarily agree to undertake in exchange for mitigation of penalties.143 EPA has stated that in certain circumstances, dam removal projects have the potential to meet the conditions for SEPs.144
Mitigation Credit145
Another potential incentive for dam removal in certain scenarios may be the opportunity for the project proponent to receive mitigation credit for the project.146 Under CWA Section 404 and RHA Sections 9 and 10, USACE has authority to issue permits (see "Statutory and Regulatory Requirements," above). USACE may require these permits to include compensatory mitigation to offset any unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States that occur as a result of the permitted activity. Compensatory mitigation refers to the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and, in certain circumstances, preservation of wetlands, streams, or other aquatic resources for the purpose of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts. According to USACE guidance, "the removal of obsolete dams and other obsolete in-stream structures can be an effective approach to restoring river and stream structure, functions, and dynamics."147 The guidance further explains that these restoration activities may be performed by mitigation banks and in lieu fee programs to generate mitigation credits, which can be sold or transferred to permittees to fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements. The activities also can be conducted as permittee-responsible mitigation. Whether mitigation credits may be considered for dam removal depends on the nature of the specific project and is subject to review by USACE and other applicable federal and state agencies.
Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal
Although there is no general underlying statutory authority for federal involvement in nonfederal dam removal, Congress has authorized federal involvement in some individual dam removal projects when it has found a compelling reason to do so. These reasons include a federal nexus, such as proximity to federal land or project, tribal responsibilities, listed species, and possibly others. The "Case Histories" box below provides an example of when Congress directed federal involvement in nonfederal dam removal; and an example of when Congress initially was involved in dam removal studies, but ultimately did not authorize federal involvement for removal.
|
Case Histories Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams The Elwha Dam was built in the 1910s and the Glines Canyon Dam was built in the 1920s on the Elwha River in Washington's Olympic Peninsula. Both were operated to provide hydropower, and neither had fish passage facilities. Dam construction impacted the Elwha River's fish resources, which historically sustained the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. In 1938, Congress established Olympic National Park (16 U.S.C. §251), which included the Elwha Dam within its boundaries. The park's boundaries expanded in 1940 to include the Glines Canyon Dam. The tribe now resides in the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation at the mouth of the river, outside of the park boundary. The Elwha Dam was never licensed for hydropower production. The dam's owner, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, filed a license application for the Elwha Dam in 1968. Crown Zellerbach Corporation also filed an application to relicense Glines Canyon Dam in 1973, the year its original license expired. In 1979, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) consolidated the applications into a single process. In 1986, Congress amended the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. §§791 et seq.) to require FERC to consider impacts on natural resources and effects on federal and tribal lands in licensing hydropower projects (see "Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Projects Under the Federal Power Act"). Also in 1986, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed an intervening motion to halt relicensing proceedings by FERC and require removal of the dams. FERC prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Elwha and Glines Canyon hydroelectric projects to evaluate their potential impacts for licensing and potential alternative actions. The process was subject to controversy and delay, due in large part to the policy implications of licensing a project within a national park; conflicting federal, state, and tribal resource goals; and legal challenges. After a protracted administrative and legal process, Congress legislated a resolution by enacting the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (P.L. 102-459) in 1992. The act directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop a report for Congress assessing alternatives to fully restore the native anadromous fisheries and the Elwha River ecosystem, and it removed FERC's authority to issue a final licensing decision. In the 1994 Elwha Report to Congress, the Secretary of the Interior recommended dam removal as the preferred alternative. Under the 1992 act, a recommendation for dam removal authorized the Department of the Interior (DOI) to acquire the dams at a cost of $29.5 million and required the Secretary of the Interior to prepare appropriate EISs. The National Park Service (NPS) issued an EIS and a record of decision in 1995 recommending removal of both dams, and it issued an implementation EIS in 1996 to address the specific construction methods and mitigation measures. After DOI acquired the project facilities in 2000, NPS issued a final supplemental EIS in 2005 to account for changes, including newly listed fish species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544), and to incorporate water quality mitigation plans. Originally, the primary source of funding for dam removal was the NPS construction budget, but the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided the remaining funding necessary to remove both dams. The total cost of Elwha River restoration was approximately $325 million and included purchasing the two dams and hydroelectric plants from their previous owner; removing the dams; and constructing two water treatment plants, flood protection facilities, a fish hatchery, and a greenhouse to propagate native plants for revegetation. NPS removed the Elwha Dam in 2011 and the Glines Canyon Dam in 2014. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), continue to monitor the Elwha River's ecosystem restoration progress following dam removal. Klamath River Dams Much of the Upper Klamath River Basin relies on economic activity supported by irrigated agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project within DOI. Mitigating the effects of water management practices, habitat alteration activities, and other factors on species listed under the ESA is a perennial issue in the basin. The basin contains seven dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. PacifiCorp, a regulated utility, originally owned six of these dams. These six dams are known collectively as the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (KHP). Historically, all but one of the dams have produced hydroelectric power for the basin, including relatively low-cost power for Klamath Project irrigators. The original FERC license to operate the KHP expired in 2006. In 2004, PacifiCorp applied for relicensing of the project, and, in 2007, FERC issued an EIS for the application. FERC analyzed various alternatives for the application, ultimately recommending a new license with mandatory prescriptions to create fish ladders. FERC estimated that fish ladders would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to implement and likely would result in net operating losses for the project. As a result of the EIS, PacifiCorp entered into basin settlement negotiations with stakeholders and continued to operate the project under temporary annual licenses. In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior, the governors of Oregon and California, PacifiCorp, and 44 other parties announced two interrelated settlement agreements intended to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA). The KBRA proposed actions to restore Klamath fisheries and assurances for water deliveries, among other things, and the KHSA laid out a process for removal of four of PacifiCorp's dams, which would be one of the largest and most complex dam removal projects undertaken in the United States. After a secretarial determination on dam removal, the dams would be transferred to DOI, which would oversee their removal. Many of the provisions of the Klamath settlement agreement required congressional action. For the agreements to enter into force and be carried out, Congress would need to (1) enact legislation authorizing both agreements, (2) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make a determination on dam removal, and (3) appropriate funding for federal components of both agreements. Congress held hearings on proposed legislation in the 113th Congress (S. 2379 and S. 2727) and 114th Congress (S. 133), but did not enact the bills into law. Despite the lack of congressional authorization, some work related to the KBRA and the KHSA proceeded under existing authorities. For example, DOI completed studies to inform the secretarial determination on dam removal; however, the Secretary of the Interior could not act because Congress did not pass legislation allowing the Secretary to make a determination to remove the dams. After some stakeholders argued that Congress was unlikely to act on the agreements, in 2016, the parties amended the KHSA to not require the transfer of dams to DOI, thus avoiding the need for congressional authorization. The amended KHSA laid out a process for PacifiCorp to transfer the dams slated for removal to a new nonprofit entity, the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), and to proceed with decommissioning the projects. In June 2021, FERC approved the transfer of the license from PacifiCorp to KRRC and the States of Oregon and California, as co-licensees. KRRC commenced removal of the Copco No. 2 dam in 2023. The plan is to remove the remaining dams and pertinent facilities by the end of 2024 and to commence with restoration initiatives around the sites. Sources: DOI; FERC; KRRC; NPS; PacifiCorp; USGS; and Julia Guarino, "Tribal Advocacy and the Art of Dam Removal: The Lower Elwha Klallam and the Elwha Dams," American Indian Law Journal, vol. 2, no. 1 (2013), pp. 114-145. Notes: For more information on Upper Klamath River Basin issues, see CRS Insight IN11689, Drought in the Klamath River Basin, by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh. The KRRC is led by a 15-member board appointed by the governors of California and Oregon, the Karuk and Yurok Tribes, and conservation and fishing groups. For more information on Klamath River restoration and dam removal, see CRS In Focus IF11616, Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration, by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh. |
Congress also has authorized and funded less complex and less expensive removal of nonfederal dams compared with the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams. At times, these federal actions intervened in what is normally considered a nonfederal responsibility. For example, Congress authorized and funded USACE to remove the Embrey Dam, owned by the City of Fredericksburg, VA, on the Rappahannock River, for $10 million.148 Congress also authorized and funded Reclamation to remove the Savage Rapids Dam in Oregon, which was owned by an irrigation district, for $39 million.149
In addition, Congress may authorize studies and construction projects that involve dam removal activities but are not primarily for the purposes of dam removal. For example, a USACE study for flood risk reduction and/or aquatic ecosystem restoration could include nonfederal dam removal in the area of study as part of a project alternative.150 If the USACE Chief of Engineers recommends that alternative, Congress may authorize a USACE project that includes nonfederal dam removal; in some cases, USACE can pursue dam removal without further congressional action.151
Dam removal is a policy option to address dam safety, operation and maintenance costs, ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. The federal government's role in dam removal varies based on ownership, purpose, location, and other factors. Congress may consider the federal government's role in studying, regulating, and executing specific projects that include dam removal. This consideration may include whether to authorize the removal of federally authorized dams and the relative importance of dam removal as a policy option for federally managed dams. Also, Congress may consider whether to become involved in dam removal deliberations, particularly those regarding federally regulated nonfederal dams (e.g., dams that are part of nonfederal hydropower projects).
Recent Congresses have provided new authorities, expanded existing authorities, and increased funding for dam removal activities, particularly for nonfederal dam removal projects. Congress may consider whether to authorize more programs with dam removal as an eligible activity or to amend existing authorities related to dam removal. Congress also may consider whether the appropriations for new or existing programs that fund dam removal activities are sufficient to meet congressional intent. Congress could, for example, appropriate funding specifically for dam removal activities under programs where dam removal is a possible activity, among other alternatives. In addition, Congress may oversee agency implementation of new or amended authorities and funding for dam removal projects and may review the effectiveness, efficiency, and priorities of agencies funding dam removal activities.
Appendix. Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal
Table A-1 provides a list of selected federal assistance (e.g., grants, loan programs) that may be available for certain nonfederal dam removal projects.152 The table provides general information, if available, on program authorities, eligible entities or dams, eligible activities and uses, applicable cost share, relevant authorizations of appropriations, recent funding,153 and relevant government websites. The list provides an overview of relevant assistance and authorities; it may not include all potential sources of federal assistance.154
|
Program |
Eligible Entity/Dams |
Eligible Activities |
Cost Share |
Authorization of Appropriations |
Recent Funding |
Website |
|
Bureau of Reclamation Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program (33 U.S.C. §2330c) |
Eligible entities include states; tribes; irrigation districts; water districts; water or power delivery authorities; organizations that own a facility eligible for upgrade, modification, or removal; nonprofit conservation organizations partnering with an entity that owns the infrastructure or land; and agencies established under state law for the joint exercise of powers. |
On the request of any eligible entity, the Secretary of the Interior may negotiate and enter into an agreement to fund the study, design, and construction of an aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection project in a Reclamation state (17 designated states west of the Mississippi River and certain territories) if the Secretary of the Interior determines the project is likely to improve the health of fisheries, wildlife, or aquatic habitat, including through habitat restoration and improved fish passage via the removal or bypass of barriers to fish passage. |
An eligible entity is to provide no less than 35% of the costs of project construction and 100% of any operation, maintenance, and replacement and rehabilitation costs with respect to the project. |
33 U.S.C. §2330c(d) authorized $15 million annually for FY2022 through 2026. In addition, Section 40901 of P.L. 117-58 authorized $250 million for FY2022 through FY2026. |
Up to $95 million for FY2024 funding opportunity. |
https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/aquatic/index.html (Anna Normand) |
|
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Grant Program (33 U.S.C. §1329) |
States and tribes are eligible for grants for projects consistent with a state's or tribe's written nonpoint source management program plan. Project proposals may be sent to state nonpoint source agencies, usually as part of an annual competitive request-for-proposals process. |
This program awards grants to states and tribes to implement their approved state nonpoint source management programs. Dam removal projects need to be consistent with a state's or tribe's nonpoint source management program plan (e.g., some states/tribes may have hydrologic modification or dam removal as priorities in their plans). Dam removal projects that are consistent with EPA guidelines also are eligible. |
Each Section 319 grant to a state or tribe requires a 40% nonfederal match. This match is not required to be met on a project-by-project basis. |
$200,000 annually for FY2023 through 2027. |
$175 million appropriated for FY2024. |
https://www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-program-states-and-territories (Laura Gatz) |
|
EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program (33 U.S.C. §§1381-1387) |
Grants to states to capitalize loan funds. SRF loans made by states to local project sponsors, including any municipal, intermunicipal, interstate, or state agency.a |
Assistance in constructing and upgrading municipal wastewater treatment, stormwater infrastructure, and other eligible projects and activities, such as implementing nonpoint pollution management programs. An EPA report on SRF eligible activities lists dam removal as an eligible activity under habitat protection and restoration. |
80%/20% for grants to states to capitalize SRFs. 0%/100%b (project loans are repaid 100% to states). |
$3.0 billion for FY2024; and |
Annual appropriations for FY2024 provided $851 million to the SRF program and $788 million for similar projects through the community project funding and congressionally directed spending. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided $2.4 billion for FY2024. |
(Jonathan L. Ramseur) |
|
EPA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program (33 U.S.C. §§3901-3914) |
Loans or loan guarantees to state infrastructure financing authorities for a group of projects and individual project sponsors, which may include a corporation; a partnership; a joint venture; a trust; or a federal, state, local, or tribal government (or consortium of tribal governments). |
A broad range of drinking water and wastewater projects with costs of $20 million or larger (or $5 million for rural areas), including projects eligible for SRF assistance. |
In general, WIFIA funding cannot exceed 49% of project costs. |
$50 million annually for FY2022 through FY2026. |
P.L. 118-42 provided $72 million for FY2024; Congress capped the amount assistance that this appropriation could provide at $12.5 billion. |
(Elena H. Humphreys) |
|
EPA Wetland Program Development Grants (33 U.S.C. §1254(b)(3)) |
States, tribes, local governments, interstate associations, and intertribal consortia are eligible to apply for funds to conduct projects that help develop and refine their wetland programs. |
The program assists nonfederal governments with building or enhancing their wetland protection and restoration programs. Grant funds could be used to fund studies to identify how dam removal can improve wetland restoration. Construction activities are specifically prohibited, unless those efforts are undertaken as part of a scientific demonstration or study. |
None. |
Expired. |
$14 million appropriated for FY2024. |
https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetland-program-development-grants-and-epa-wetlands-grant-coordinators (Laura Gatz) |
|
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) High-Hazard Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program (33 U.S.C. §467f–2) |
State governments may submit applications to FEMA on behalf of sub-recipients for eligible dams and then may distribute any grant funding received from FEMA to sub-recipients for the dams. Eligible dams must be in a state with a dam safety program, be classified as high hazard, fail to meet the state's minimum dam safety standards, and pose an unacceptable risk to the public, among other criteria. Federally owned dams, dams built under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture, and hydropower dams with an authorized installed capacity of greater than 1.5 megawatts are not eligible for the program. |
The program assists with technical, planning, design, and construction activities toward the repair, removal, and structural/ nonstructural rehabilitation of eligible high-hazard potential dams. |
Nonfederal cost share of no less than 35%. |
$60 million annually for FY2021 through FY2026. |
$185 million for FY2024 fall funding opportunity. |
(Anna Normand) |
|
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) (Section 404 of P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §5170c) |
Eligible applicants include states, territories, the District of Columbia (DC), and federally recognized tribes. A federally recognized tribe has the option to apply for HMGP directly to FEMA as an applicant or through a state as a sub-applicant. Eligible sub-applicants include state agencies, federally recognized tribes, local governments/ communities, and private nonprofit organizations. A governor or equivalent may request that HMGP funding be available throughout the state, territory, or tribal area following a presidential major disaster declaration or Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declaration under Section 420 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §5187). |
Eligible activities include localized and non-localized flood risk reduction projects, nonstructural retrofitting of existing buildings, and soil stabilization. Flood risk reduction projects may include the construction, demolition, or rehabilitation of dams. Modifications must be for the purpose of increasing the capacity for risk reduction of the existing structures and cannot constitute only repairs. |
Nonfederal cost share of no less than 25%. The recipient may choose to meet the cost-share requirement by ensuring a minimum 25% nonfederal cost share for the overall award to the state rather than on an individual activity basis. |
The program is funded from the Disaster Relief Fund and is available following a presidential major disaster declaration or FMAG declaration under the Stafford Act. Once the program is approved for an eligible applicant, HMGP program funding does not have to be used for the particular disaster for which it was allocated or for the particular location or type of disaster. The applicant makes decisions about allocating program funds to sub-applicants. |
The level of funding for a given disaster is based on a percentage of the estimated total federal assistance under the Stafford Act for each presidential major disaster declaration or FMAG declaration, subject to a sliding scale formula (see U.S.C. §5170c(a) and 44 C.F.R. §206.432(b)). |
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation (Diane Horn) |
|
FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) (Section 203 of P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §5133) |
Eligible applicants include states, territories, DC, and federally recognized tribes. Tribes have the option to apply for BRIC funding directly to FEMA as an applicant or through a state as a sub-applicant. Eligible sub-applicants include state agencies, federally recognized tribes, and local governments/ communities. Any states or territories, or federally recognized tribes that are entirely or partially located in a state or territory, that have had a major disaster declaration in the seven years prior to the application start date are eligible to apply. All states, territories, and federally recognized tribes had COVID-19 disaster declarations in 2020. |
Eligible activities for BRIC are the same as those described above for HMGP. The priorities for the BRIC program in FY2023 were to (1) incentivize natural hazard risk reduction activities that mitigate risk to public infrastructure; (2) incorporate nature-based solutions, including those designed to reduce carbon emissions; (3) enhance climate resilience and adaptation; (4) promote equity and prioritize disadvantaged communities; and (5) increase funding to applicants that facilitate the adoption and enforcement of the latest published editions of building codes. |
Generally, nonfederal cost share of no less than 25%. However, small, impoverished communities (as defined in 42 U.S.C. §5133(a)), economically disadvantaged rural communities, and communities in designated Community Disaster Resilience Zones are eligible for an increase in the federal share up to 90% of project costs on request. The nonfederal cost share may be waived for insular areas if the nonfederal share is under $200,000. |
For each major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act, the President may set aside from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) an amount equal to 6% of the estimated aggregate amount of the grants to be made pursuant to the following sections of the Stafford Act: 403, 406, 407, 408, 410, 416, and 428. |
The IIJA appropriated $1 billion for BRIC, with $200 million for each of FY2022 to FY2026. This is in addition to the 6% set-aside in the DRF. The notice of funding opportunity for BRIC posted on October 12, 2023, stated a total of $1 billion available. As of December 31, 2023, there was $4.577 billion set aside in the DRF for the program (see CRS Report R45484, The Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Issues, for more information on the Disaster Relief Fund). |
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities (Diane Horn) |
|
FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program (Title XIII of P.L. 90-448, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4104c) |
Eligible applicants include states, territories, tribal governments (federally recognized), and local communities, as defined in 42 U.S.C. §4003(a)(1) and 2 U.S.C. §4104c(h)(1). Sub-applicants include communities and tribal governments (including federally recognized tribes that choose to apply as sub-applicants). All sub-applicants must be participating in the National Flood Insurance Program and must not be withdrawn, on probation, or suspended. Structures identified in the sub-application must have an NFIP policy in effect when applying and must maintain it through the life of the project. FMA funding does not require a Stafford Act declaration. |
Eligible activities include localized and non-localized flood risk reduction projects, which may include the construction, demolition, or rehabilitation of dams. Modifications must be for the purpose of increasing the capacity for risk reduction of the existing structures. Non-localized flood risk reduction projects such as dam removal are only eligible if the FEMA Administrator determines in a mitigation plan that such activities are the most cost-effective mitigation activities for the NFIP. Mitigation projects are required to meet minimum standards set by the NFIP. |
Generally, federal funding is available for up to 75% of eligible costs. FEMA may contribute up to 90% for repetitive loss properties and up to 100% for severe repetitive loss properties, as defined in 42 U.S.C. §4014(h) and 44 C.F.R. §79.2(h). |
The program is funded from NFIP policyholders' premiums, fees, and surcharges. No funding is appropriated for the program. Congress allows FEMA to withdraw funds from the National Flood Insurance Fund and to use those funds to operate the NFIP, but the spending authority to use these offsetting collections for the program must be authorized in appropriations acts. |
The IIJA appropriated $3.5 billion for FMA, with $700 million for each of FY2022 to FY2026. The notice of funding opportunity for FMA posted on October 12, 2023, stated a total of $800 million available. |
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/floods (Diane Horn) |
|
FEMA Public Assistance (Sections 324, 402, 403, 406, 407, 418, 419, 428, and 502 of P.L. 93-288, as amended) |
Eligible applicants include state, tribal, territorial, or local governments and certain nonprofit organizations, as defined in 42 U.S.C. §5122, when authorized as part of a presidential emergency declaration or major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act. |
The program supports emergency work, including permanent work to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace disaster-damaged facilities, including water control facilities. Water control facilities may include dams and levees not under the authority of other federal agencies. |
The Stafford Act authorizes FEMA to reimburse not less than 75% of the eligible costs of specific types of disaster response and recovery work undertaken by eligible applicants. FEMA may recommend that the President increase the federal cost share, where warranted. |
Assistance is funded from the Disaster Relief Fund and is available only pursuant to a Stafford Act declaration of emergency or major disaster (42 U.S.C. §5170). If significant damage occurs as a result of one or more FMAG declarations, the governor or tribal chief executive may request a major disaster declaration for the fire incident(s). |
Public assistance funding is available only at the request of a governor or tribal chief executive when an incident exceeds local ability to recover. FEMA evaluates the request and then may recommend that the President authorize assistance. |
https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public (Erica Lee) |
|
FEMA Resilience Revolving Loan Fund ( P.L. 116-284) |
Eligible entities include states, territories, and the District of Columbia, and tribes that have received a direct major disaster declaration. |
The revolving loan may be used to provide financial assistance for projects that increase resilience and reduce risk of harm to natural and built infrastructure from natural hazards. Mitigation projects to address flooding, including the construction, repair, or replacement of a nonfederal levee or other flood control structure, require the prior approval of FEMA. |
Nonfederal cost share of no less than 10%. |
$100 million annually for FY2022 and FY2023. |
The IIJA appropriated $500 million for STRLF, with $100 million for each of FY2022 to FY2026. The notice of funding opportunity for STRLF posted on December 19, 2023, stated a total of $150 million available. |
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/storm-rlf (Diane Horn) |
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlantic Salmon Habitat Restoration Partnership Grants (16 U.S.C. §661; 16 U.S.C. §1891a; 16 U.S.C. §1535) |
Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education; nonprofits; commercial (for-profit) organizations; U.S. territories; and state, local, and tribal governments. Applicants must propose work within one or more Salmon Habitat Recovery Units in the state of Maine. |
The grants support projects providing sustainable and lasting benefits for Atlantic salmon. Proposals that incorporate proven restoration techniques and focus on removal of barriers receive the highest priority. Dam removals receive higher priority than installation of structures that require operations and maintenance. |
There is no statutory matching requirement for this program. NOAA typically leverages its federal funding with matching contributions from a range of sources in the public and private sectors to implement restoration. Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to demonstrate a commitment of 1:1 federal funding to nonfederal match. NOAA considers cost sharing in the evaluation criteria. |
Expired. |
The notice of funding opportunity posted on January 31, 2024, was for 3-year projects ranging from $100,000 to $1.5 million. In FY2024, up to $700,000 is anticipated for supporting the first year of selected projects. |
https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/352093 (Anthony Marshak) |
|
NOAA Great Lakes Fish Habitat Restoration Regional Partnership Grants (16 U.S.C. §661; 16 U.S.C. §1891a) |
Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education; nonprofits; commercial (for-profit) organizations; U.S. territories; and state, local, and tribal governments. Eligible applicants may be located anywhere but must propose work within the Great Lakes Basin and within one of the eight U.S. Great Lakes states (New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). |
The grants support planning and/or on-the-ground restoration activities. Projects can include fish passage barrier removal. |
There is no statutory matching requirement for this program. NOAA typically leverages its federal funding with matching contributions from a range of sources in the public and private sectors to implement coastal and marine habitat restoration. NOAA considers cost sharing in evaluation criteria. |
NA. |
Awards depend on the amount of funds made available to NOAA for this purpose by the EPA (through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative—see |
https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/336437 (Eva Lipiec, Anthony Marshak) |
|
NOAA Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (16 U.S.C. §3645(d)(2)) |
The fund makes available funding to the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, California, and Alaska and to federally recognized tribes of the Columbia River and Pacific Coast (including Alaska) for projects necessary for the conservation of certain salmon and steelhead populations. |
Eligible activities include projects that address factors limiting the productivity of Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C §§1531 et seq.) or those populations necessary for the exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights or native subsistence fishing. |
State applicants are required to match or document in-kind contributions of at least 33% of received federal funds. Indian tribes, representative tribal commissions, and consortia are exempt from any cost-share requirement. |
Expired. |
Up to $106 million for the FY2024 funding opportunity. |
https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/351310 (Anthony Marshak) |
|
NOAA Restoring Fish Passage through Barrier Removal Grants (including the Tribal Priority opportunity) (P.L. 117-58; 135 STAT. 1356; P.L. 117-169; 16 U.S.C. 1891a)a |
Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education; non-profits; commercial (for profit) organizations; U.S. territory, state, local, and Native American and Alaska Native tribal governments. Applicants must propose work in areas that benefit U.S. migratory fish. For the Tribal Priority opportunity, eligible applicants are Indian tribes (as defined in 25 U.S.C. §5304(e)) and organizations that represent Indian tribes through formal legal agreements. Other institutions and organizations may partner with Indian tribes and representatives. |
Eligible activities include locally led fish passage efforts through removals of dams and other in-stream barriers for native migratory or sea-run fish. Proposed activities may include future project development and feasibility studies, engineering and design, permitting, on-the-ground fish passage restoration, pre- and post-removal implementation monitoring, stakeholder engagement, among other activities. Proposals may support hydroelectric license surrender to remove dams that are no longer economically viable or provide significant public benefits.b |
There is no non-federal matching requirement for this funding. Non-federal match funds may be optionally included in an application to demonstrate stakeholder support for the proposed work. |
Expired. |
Approximately $175 million for the notice of funding opportunity posted on July 31, 2023, with an additional approximately $85 million for the Tribal Priority funding opportunity. |
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/grant/restoring-fish-passage-through-barrier-removal-grants (Anthony Marshak) |
|
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (CWIFP; 33 U.S.C. §§3901-3914) |
CWIFP-eligible entities include state, local, and tribal government entities and various private entities (e.g., corporations, partnerships, and trusts) that are publicly sponsored; federal entities are ineligible. |
The program is authorized to offer credit assistance (i.e., loans and loan guarantees) to projects (or groups of projects) with costs greater than $20 million with the following purposes: reduction of riverine or coastal storm flood damage; restoration of aquatic ecosystems; improvement of the inland and intracoastal waterways navigation system; improvement of navigation at a U.S. harbor; or a combination of purposes. Appropriations through FY2023 have limited CWIFP to nonfederal dam safety projects; USACE identifies dam removal as an eligible dam safety project. |
Maximum amount of CWIFP credit assistance is 49% percent of eligible project costs or up to 80% for projects serving economically disadvantaged communities (88 Federal Register 64892). |
Expired. |
$104 million in enacted funding from FY2021 through FY2023, of which $81 million is specifically to support dam safety projects for nonfederally owned dams, and the remainder for program administration. USACE may be able to provide $7.5 billion in loans with the appropriations available through FY2023. $7.2 million enacted in FY2024, of which $2.2 million is to nonfederal dam safety and nonfederal levee projects, and the remaining $5 million is for program administration. |
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Infrastructure/revolutionize/CWIFP/ (Nicole T. Carter) |
|
USACE Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Continuing Authorities Program (33 U.S.C. §2330) |
A nonfederal sponsor (e.g., a local government or nonprofit entity, with local government consent) is eligible to request assistance for an ecosystem restoration project. |
Aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, including dam removal, are eligible if they improve the quality of the environment, are in the public interest, and are cost effective. Unless otherwise waived by statute, the federal cost may not exceed $10 million. |
The nonfederal sponsor is responsible for 50% of funding for studies above the initial $100,000 in federal funds. Unless otherwise waived by statute, the nonfederal sponsor is responsible for 35% of total project costs during the design, implementation, and monitoring periods. The nonfederal sponsor must provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas required for the project. |
$63 million for FY2021 through FY2024. |
$8 million appropriated for FY2024. |
https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Public-Services/Continuing-Authorities-Program/Section-206/ (Anna Normand) |
|
USACE Section 506 Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program (42 U.S.C. §1962d–22) |
A nonfederal sponsor, including a private interest or a nonprofit entity, may partner with USACE for a project to support the restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. |
Eligible projects restore fish and wildlife habitat, remove dams and other barriers to fish migration, prevent and control non-native invasive species, and contribute to the removal of beneficial-use impairments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. |
Federal construction cost share is 65%. Operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects are nonfederal responsibilities. |
NA. |
Funding depends on the amount of funds made available to USACE for this purpose by the EPA (through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative—see |
https://www.lrd.usace.army.mil/Home/Great-Lakes-Fishery-Ecosystem-Restoration-Program/ (Anna Normand) |
|
U.S. Department of Agriculture Watershed Rehabilitation Program (16 U.S.C. §1012) |
Only dams constructed under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) program and the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program are eligible. WFPO consists of projects built under two authorities—the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534). RC&D projects are authorized under Subtitle H of Title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. §§3451 et seq.). |
Technical and financial assistance is available to project sponsors for the planning, design, and construction of rehabilitation efforts addressing health and safety concerns of eligible dams. Upgrading or decommissioning may be considered. |
Federal funds account for 65% of the total cost of a rehabilitation project. Local project sponsors must provide 35% of the total cost of a rehabilitation project and must obtain needed land rights and permits. Federal funds cannot be used for operation and maintenance. |
$85 million annually for FY2008 through FY2024. |
$1 million in discretionary appropriations for FY2024. An unspecified portion of $50 million annually in mandatory funds authorized for WFPO may also be used for rehabilitation work under the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. |
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/watershed-rehabilitation (Megan Stubbs) |
|
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Fish Passage Program (16 U.S.C. §§757a-757g; 16 U.S.C. §§5151 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. §§742a-742c; 16 U.S.C. §742j; 16 U.S.C. §§661-667e) |
The program works on a voluntary basis with federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, as well as with private partners and stakeholders. Fish passage projects are not eligible for funding if they are for any federal or state compensatory mitigation or if fish passage is a condition provided by existing federal or state regulatory programs. |
Fish passage projects are to restore unimpeded flows and fish movement by removing barriers or bypass options. Assistance may be for dam removal, water diversion, culvert removal, bypass channels, research, inventories, and assessments (examples of funded projects: https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fish-passage/fish-passage-projects-at-work.html). |
Pursuant to FWS policy related to the Fish Passage Program, FWS seeks to secure at least 50% of total project costs from partners. This applies to the overall regional program and may not need to be achieved on every project. Funding matches may be in-kind services or cash. |
NA. |
The estimated amount available for the FY2024 funding opportunity is $70 million. |
https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fish-passage.html (Pervaze Sheikh) |
|
FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife (16 U.S.C. §3771; 16 U.S.C. §742a-c; 16 U.S.C. §742e-742j; 16 U.S.C. §§661-667e) |
The voluntary, incentive-based program provides direct technical and financial assistance in the form of cooperative and grant agreements to private landowners to restore and conserve fish and wildlife habitat for the benefit of federal trust resources. Projects must be implemented on private property, with the exception of efforts that support projects on private lands. |
The program can assist with modernizing fish passage structures to allow safe travel by aquatic resources and, at the same time, allow for structural stability by designing units to avoid flood damage. Other eligible activities are water control structure and fencing projects. |
Cost sharing is not required in statute, but FWS states that it strives to achieve a minimum cost share of 1:1 on selected projects. Cost share may be monetary or in-kind contributions. |
NA. |
The estimated amount available for the FY2024 funding opportunity is $15 million. |
(Pervaze Sheikh) |
|
U.S. Forest Service (FS) Collaborative Aquatic Landscape Restoration (Section 40804(b)(10) and Section 40804(f) of P.L. 117-58) |
Restoration of priority habitats on federal lands. |
Fund proposals of up to $5 million for five-year projects to restore fish passage or water quality on federal and nonfederal land and to prioritize for selection proposals that would result in the most miles of stream restoration for the lowest amount of federal funding. |
Varies; cost sharing not required in statute. |
$80 million for FY2022 through FY2026. |
$26 million in funding for the first round of proposals selected from the FY2022 solicitation. |
https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/natural-resources/collaborative-aquatic-landscape-restoration (Anne Riddle) |
Source: CRS, using federal agency websites and public laws.
Notes: NA = not applicable. Congress may appropriate funding for programs with expired authorizations of appropriations.
The Stafford Act defines state as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (see 42 U.S.C. §5122(4)). Any reference in the Stafford Act to state and local is deemed also to refer to tribal governments, as appropriate (see 42 U.S.C. §5123). The Stafford Act defines Indian tribal government as the governing body of any Indian or Alaskan Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. §§479a et seq.; also see 42 U.S.C. §5122(6)). Other programs not authorized by the Stafford Act may have different tribal definitions.
a. This ratio does not account for additional subsidization. Under certain conditions, states may provide additional subsidization, including principal forgiveness, negative interest loans, or a combination. In addition, appropriations acts in recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their allotted funds to provide additional subsidization, including grants.
b. In some cases, privately owned projects are eligible for certain types of activities.
| 1. |
For partial removal, the dam height and storage capacity may be reduced to the point that the structure no longer meets the statutory definition of a dam (which varies from state to state) or no longer presents a downstream hazard. A controlled breach of a dam also may constitute a method of dam removal. United States Society on Dams (USSD), Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects, July 2015, https://www.ussdams.org/about/white-papers/. Hereinafter, USSD, Guidelines. |
| 2. |
American Rivers, "American Rivers Dam Removal Database," February 2023, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5234068. Hereinafter, American Rivers, "Database." |
| 3. |
A narrative list of some of the dams removed from 1999 to 2020 can be found at American Rivers, "69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers," February 2021, https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DamsRemoved_1999-2020.pdf. |
| 4. |
For the Potter Valley Project, see "Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Project (FERC Project No. 77) Surrender Application and Decommissioning Plan Stakeholder Website," https://www.pottervalleysurrenderproceeding.com/. For the Klamath Hydroelectric Project, see herein the gray box in the Section "Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal" and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), H-1 P-2082-063, November 17, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/media/h-1-p-2082-063. |
| 5. |
The NID can be accessed at USACE, "National Inventory of Dams," https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil. Online National Inventory of Dams (NID) data from January 2, 2024 update are used throughout this report unless otherwise specified. Hereinafter, January 2, 2024, NID.State and federal agencies self-report dam information to the NID. In this report, the number of dams owned by federal agencies is based on federal agency reporting to the NID. State agencies also reported additional dams owned by the federal government, though CRS could not confirm ownership of these dams. |
| 6. |
33 U.S.C. §467. One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover 1 acre of land, about the size of a football field, 1 foot deep. |
| 7. |
January 2, 2024, NID. |
| 8. |
For more information, see CRS Report R45981, Dam Safety Overview and the Federal Role, by Anna E. Normand. |
| 9. |
International Hydropower Association, "Types of Hydropower," https://www.hydropower.org/iha/discover-types-of-hydropower. |
| 10. |
January 2, 2024, NID. |
| 11. |
USSD, "Types of Dams," https://www.ussdams.org/dam-levee-education/overview/types-of-dams/. |
| 12. |
January 2, 2024, NID. Some dams were built before the 1900s (approximately 2,300 of the dams listed in the NID). 18,303 dams listed in the NID had no age of construction reported. |
| 13. |
American Society of Civil Engineers, Infrastructure Report Card: Dams, 2021, https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/dams/; hereinafter ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card. |
| 14. |
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams, 2004, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/fema-333.pdf. |
| 15. |
As of January 2, 2024, 4% of dams listed in the NID did not have a hazard classification. |
| 16. |
January 2, 2024, NID; FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years 2016-2017, May 2019, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-report-2016-2017.pdf; ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card. |
| 17. |
FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years 2016-2017, May 2019, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-report-2016-2017.pdf; ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card. |
| 18. |
FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years 2012-2013, 2014, https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/dam-safety/progress-report. |
| 19. |
Poor condition means one or more dam safety deficiencies are recognized for hydrologic conditions that may realistically occur and remedial action is necessary. Unsatisfactory condition means one or more dam safety deficiencies are recognized that require immediate action or emergency remedial action for problem resolution. January 2, 2024, NID. |
| 20. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 21. |
Jeffrey J. Duda et al., "Patterns, Drivers, and a Predictive Model of Dam Removal Cost in the United States," Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 11 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1215471. (hereinafter, Duda et al., "Dam Removal Cost"); Headwater Economics, Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal, October 2016, https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/dam-removal-case-studies/; H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making, 2002, https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/273439.pdf (hereinafter, Heinz Center, Dam Removal). |
| 22. |
This database is separate from the NID, which does not track dam removals. |
| 23. |
American Rivers, "Database." |
| 24. |
U.S. Forest Service (FS), "Dam Removal on the Cleveland NF," https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/?cid=fseprd583291. |
| 25. |
American Rivers, "Database"; Vincent Gonzales and Margaret A. Walls, Dams and Dam Removals in the United States, Resources for the Future, October 22, 2020, https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/dams-and-dam-removals-united-states/ (hereinafter, Resources for the Future, Dam Removals). |
| 26. |
American Rivers, "69 Dams Removed in 2020," February 18, 2021, https://www.americanrivers.org/2021/02/69-dams-removed-in-2020/. |
| 27. |
Zbigniew J. Grabowski, Heejun Chang, and Elise F. Granek, "Fracturing Dams, Fractured Data: Empirical Trends and Characteristics of Existing and Removed Dams in the United States," River Research and Applications, vol. 34, no. 6 (2018), pp. 526-537. Hereinafter, Grabowski, "Empirical Trends." |
| 28. |
U.S. Geological Survey, "Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP)," Version: 2.3.2, https://data.usgs.gov/drip-dashboard/. |
| 29. |
The majority of studies focused on hydrologic and physical responses to dam removal rather than biological and water quality responses. Few studies were published on linkages between these physical and ecological components. J. Ryan Bellmore et al., "Status and Trends of Dam Removal Research in the United States," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, vol. 4, no. 2 (2017), p. e1164. |
| 30. |
Most dam infrastructure is designed with expected operating life of 50 years for the dam's purpose; however, proper maintenance and necessary rehabilitation and repair may extend operating lives. ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card; Duminda Perera et al., Ageing Water Storage Infrastructure: An Emerging Global Risk, UNU-INWEH Report Series 11, 2021, https://inweh.unu.edu/ageing-water-storage-infrastructure-an-emerging-global-risk/ (hereinafter, Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure). |
| 31. |
Advisory Committee on Water Information, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines for Sediment, December 2017, https://rsm.usace.army.mil/initiatives/other/DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017_508.pdf. Hereinafter, Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines. |
| 32. |
Melissa M. Foley et al., "Dam Removal: Listening In," Water Resources Research, vol. 53, no. 7 (2017), pp. 5229-5246; Heinz Center, Dam Removal. |
| 33. |
David D. Hart et al., "Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration: We Develop a Risk Assessment Framework for Understanding How Potential Responses to Dam Removal Vary with Dam and Watershed Characteristics, Which Can Lead to More Effective Use of This Restoration Method," BioScience, vol. 52, no. 8 (2002), pp. 669-682, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/8/669/254910. |
| 34. |
Natallia L. Diessner et al., "I'll Be Dammed! Public Preferences Regarding Dam Removal in New Hampshire," Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, vol. 8, no. 1 (2020), at https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/8/1/003/114206/I-ll-be-dammed-Public-preferences-regarding-dam; F. J. Magilligan, C. S. Sneddon, and C. A. Fox, "The Social, Historical, and Institutional Contingencies of Dam Removal," Environmental Management, vol. 59, no. 6 (2017), pp. 982-994, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-017-0835-2.pdf (hereinafter, Magilligan, "Contingencies of Dam Removal"). |
| 35. |
Anadromous fish are fish that live as juveniles in fresh water, migrate to the ocean to develop, and, when sexually mature, return to freshwater to spawn. |
| 36. |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, "Reopening Rivers to Migratory Fish in the Northeast," https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c7dfb5ea18da4c7db9eb77848b827b6f; USSD, Guidelines. |
| 37. |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), "What Is Fish Passage?," https://www.fws.gov/story/what-fish-passage. |
| 38. |
For instance, a news article from the Associated Press determined that two-thirds of the $1.2 billion per year spent on endangered and threatened species goes toward recovery of fish. Mathew Brown and John Flesher, "Most Money for Endangered Species Goes to a Small Number of Creatures, Leaving Others in Limbo," Associated Press, December 30, 2023. USSD, Guidelines. |
| 39. |
FWS, "Dam Removal: An Opportunity for Our Rivers," fact sheet, https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/equity/NativeAmericanEducation/Documents/SB13%20Curriculum/Dam%20Removal%20An%20Opportunity%20for%20Our%20Rivers.pdf; J. Ryan Bellmore et al., "Conceptualizing Ecological Responses to Dam Removal: If You Remove It, What's to Come?," BioScience, vol. 69, no. 1 (2019), pp. 26-39, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/1/26/5285462 (hereinafter, Bellmore, BioScience). |
| 40. |
Leandro E. Miranda, Reservoir Fish Habitat Management, 2017, https://www.friendsofreservoirs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Reservoir-Fish-Habitat-Management-_Manual.pdf. |
| 41. |
Stephen Beatty et al., "Rethinking Refuges: Implications of Climate Change for Dam Busting," Biological Conservation, vol. 209 (2017), pp. 188-195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.007. |
| 42. |
For example, dams throughout the Great Lakes states prevent sea lamprey from migrating upstream into tributary streams and rivers. Bellmore, BioScience. |
| 43. |
Angela T. Bednarek, "Undamming Rivers: A Review of the Ecological Impacts of Dam Removal," Environmental Management, 2001, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 803-814. |
| 44. |
Katherine Abbott, Allison Roy, and Keith Nislow, Restoring Aquatic Habitats Through Dam Removal, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-148-2022, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3996/css92498424. |
| 45. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 46. |
Bellmore, BioScience. |
| 47. |
Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure. |
| 48. |
Bellmore, BioScience. |
| 49. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 50. |
Bellmore, BioScience; Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines. |
| 51. |
Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), "Roadmap to Reducing Dam Safety Risks," 2024, https://damsafety.org/Roadmap. |
| 52. |
Common safety improvements to dams may include increased spillway discharge capacity; replacement of inlet and outlet structures, gates, and valves; modifications to increase stability of concrete and masonry dams; modifications to control seepage and piping potential of embankment dams; erosion control improvements for embankment dams and unlined spillways; and dam overtopping protection. USSD, Guidelines. |
| 53. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 54. |
ASDSO, "Public Safety Hazard," 2024, https://damsafety.org/public-safety-hazards. |
| 55. |
Heinz Center, Dam Removal; Julien Boulange et al., "Role of Dams in Reducing Global Flood Exposure Under Climate Change," Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1 (2021), pp. 1-7. |
| 56. |
Costs for these types of modifications may require a significant expenditure of project funds and a temporary loss of project benefits during construction. USSD, Guidelines. |
| 57. |
Authors also developed an application for estimating dam removal costs, which could be used for exploratory analyses and potential dam removal planning. Duda et al., "Dam Removal Cost." |
| 58. |
Resources for the Future, Dam Removals. |
| 59. |
Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines. |
| 60. |
American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal: Guide to Selected Funding Sources, October 2000, https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/DamSafety/Documents/Paying-for-Dam-Removal-American-Rivers-2000.pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal. |
| 61. |
See sections herein "Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal" and "Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal." |
| 62. |
Although dam removal may result in the loss of project benefits, some project benefits may be achieved by other means and project lands may be sold or developed for other purposes. USSD, Guidelines. |
| 63. |
Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure. |
| 64. |
Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure. |
| 65. |
Recreation was the primary purpose of 33% of dams listed in the January 2, 2024, NID. |
| 66. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 67. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 68. |
William L. Graf, Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects, Heinz Center, 2003, http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/NGO/DamResearchFullReport.pdf. |
| 69. |
Heinz Center, Dam Removal. |
| 70. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 71. |
Magilligan, "Contingencies of Dam Removal." |
| 72. |
Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure; USSD, Guidelines. |
| 73. |
Desirée D. Tullos et al., "Synthesis of Common Management Concerns Associated with Dam Removal," JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 52, no. 5 (2016), pp. 1179-1206. |
| 74. |
For example, see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), "Green River Dam No. 5 Removal Work Temporarily Halted While Crews Perform Additional Surveys," July 21, 2022, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/3082131/green-river-dam-no-5-removal-work-temporarily-halted-while-crews-perform-additi/; and Lenhart, Christian F. "A Preliminary Review of NOAA's Community-based Dam Removal and Fish Passage Projects." Coastal Management, 31, no. 1 (2003): 79-98. |
| 75. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 76. |
USSD, Guidelines. |
| 77. |
Removal of congressionally authorized dams owned by USACE or by Reclamation has been rare. See herein section on "Federal Dams." |
| 78. |
See herein "Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal." |
| 79. |
Additional state environmental compliance requirements may vary but generally complement federal regulatory compliance requirements. Local regulations may require various permits specific to local jurisdictions. USSD, Guidelines. |
| 80. |
For more information, see Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Permit Program Under CWA 404," March 11, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404; and CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz. |
| 81. |
EPA, "Frequent Questions on Removal of Obsolete Dams," EPA-840-F-16-001, December 2016, https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/frequent-questions-removal-obsolete-dams. Hereinafter, EPA, "Frequent Questions." |
| 82. |
For the purposes of a nationwide permit, USACE defines the term low-head dam as a dam built across a stream to pass flows from upstream over all, or nearly all, of the dam's width on a continual and uncontrolled basis. In general, a low-head dam does not have a separate spillway or spillway gates and provides little storage. USACE has since updated the nationwide permits. Nationwide Permit 53, "Removal of Low-Head Dams," has an effective date of February 25, 2022, and an expiration date of March 14, 2026. USACE, Nationwide Permit 53 - Removal of Low-Head Dams, https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/docs/missions/regulatory/2021%20NWP/NWP-53.pdf. |
| 83. |
American Rivers, Obtaining Permits to Remove a Dam, August 2007, http://scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/hazard_mitigation/background_material/dam_removal/Obtaining_Permits_to_Remove_a_Dam.pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers, Obtaining Permits. |
| 84. |
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts in the decisionmaking process for a major federal action. For more information on the NEPA process, see CRS Report RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation. |
| 85. |
EPA, "Frequent Questions." |
| 86. |
For example, FS Categorical Exclusion 18 allows the restoration of wetlands, streams, and riparian areas by removing, replacing, or modifying water control structures including, but not limited to, dams, levees, dikes, drainage tiles, ditches, culverts, pipes, valves, gates, and fencing to allow waters to flow into natural channels and floodplains that restore natural flow regimes to the extent practicable. FS, "US Forest Service Categorical Exclusions for Soil and Water Restoration Activities," June 7, 2021, https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nepa/restorationCE/index.html. |
| 87. |
In many cases, an environmental assessment (EA) would be an appropriate level of analysis for dam removal, as long as the agency concludes through the EA that there is a finding of no significant impact. However, for more complex projects with the potential for significant impacts, an environmental impact statement (EIS) may be required. EPA, "National Environmental Policy Act Review Process," October 3, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-review-process. |
| 88. |
NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation completed programmatic NEPA documents in 2002, 2006, and 2015 (Restoration Center Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement) to assess the impacts of its habitat restoration activities, reduce administrative costs, and maximize program efficiency. NOAA Fisheries, "Environmental Compliance in the Office of Habitat Conservation," February 14, 2024, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/environmental-compliance-office-habitat-conservation. |
| 89. |
For example, FS evaluated restoration and removal of 81 dams in Cleveland National Forest in a single EA, which reduced the time and expense to complete the NEPA process compared with conducting EAs for individual dams and provided flexibility in the timing and removal methods for individual dams. FS, Environmental Assessment Trabuco District Dam Removal Project: Silverado, Holy Jim, and San Juan Creeks, February 2014, https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41140&exp=overview. |
| 90. |
EPA, "Frequent Questions"; USSD, Guidelines. |
| 91. |
USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits. |
| 92. |
For more information, see CRS In Focus IF12423, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation, by Erin H. Ward and Pervaze A. Sheikh. |
| 93. |
16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(2); USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits. |
| 94. |
For more information, see CRS Insight IN11606, Tribal Consultation: Administration Guidance and Policy Consideration, by Mariel J. Murray. |
| 95. |
For more information, see CRS Report R47543, Historic Properties and Federal Responsibilities: An Introduction to Section 106 Reviews, by Mark K. DeSantis. |
| 96. |
For more information, see section "Permits, Regulations, and Enforcement" in CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz. |
| 97. |
For more information, see CRS Report R45460, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Overview and Issues for Congress, by Eva Lipiec. |
| 98. |
January 2, 2024, NID. |
| 99. |
Federal land management agencies include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FWS, FS, and National Park Service (NPS). For more information on federal land management agencies, see https://www.crs.gov/video/detail/WVB00399. |
| 100. |
For example, USACE's Water Control Management Engineering Regulation states that "these public laws generally authorize the project for construction and operation for certain purposes with details being outlined in referenced project documents, which USACE carries out, including through the development of water control plans and appropriate revisions thereto under the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers." USACE, Water Control Management, Engineering Regulation 1110-2-240, May 30, 2016, https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/76/publications/engineerregulations/er_1110-2-240.pdf. |
| 101. |
USACE and Reclamation follow the Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (Principles and Guidelines) established in 1983 for planning and evaluating alternatives for civil works projects. Larry Oliver et al., Low-Head Dam Removal for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration in the Corps, 2018, https://www.nalms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/38-1-3.pdf. Hereinafter, Oliver et al., Corps Dam Removal. |
| 102. |
For an explanation of this process by USACE, see CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand. If a USACE-managed dam no longer serves its authorized purposes, USACE may conduct a disposition study under its Section 216 authority to review navigation, flood control, and water supply projects (33 U.S.C. §549a). For example, USACE conducted a disposition study in 2014 for Green River Locks and Dams 3 through 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam, which were no longer serving their navigation purposes. USACE, Green and Barren Rivers Locks and Dams Disposition Feasibility Study, February 2014, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/CWProjects/Green%20and%20Barren%20dispo/Main%20Report.pdf. |
| 103. |
For example, in Section 1315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (WRDA 2016; Title I of P.L. 114-322), Congress deauthorized Green River Locks and Dams 3 through 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam, while stipulating the removal of Green River Locks and Dams 5 and 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam. Removal of Green River Locks and Dams 5 and 6 began in 2017 and 2021, respectively. USACE, "Conservation Partners Celebrate Green River Dam Removal," September 20, 2021, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/2781999/; USACE, "USACE Announces Emergency Removal of Remaining Portions of Green River Lock and Dam 6," August 29, 2022, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/3143196/usace-announces-emergency-removal-of-remaining-portions-of-green-river-lock-and/. |
| 104. |
As a specific example, following construction authorization in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121) for aquatic ecosystem restoration, USACE allocated construction appropriations in USACE's FY2016 work plan to the Marsh Lake, MN, project, which included removal of the Marsh Lake Dam and construction of other structures. The nonfederal sponsor provided the 35% nonfederal cost share, as required for USACE ecosystem restoration projects (33 U.S.C. §2213). USACE removed the dam in October 2018 and completed project construction in June 2020. USACE, "Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota," September 25, 2023, https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Home/Projects/Article/571148/marsh-lake-ecosystem-restoration-project/. |
| 105. |
The American Rivers' Dam Removal Database lists only seven USACE-managed dams and no Reclamation-managed dams removed between 2000 and 2022. American Rivers, "Database." |
| 106. |
For example, USACE has repeatedly considered deauthorizaton and removal of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam since commercial navigation ceased through the lock, USACE determined the structure was unsafe, and dam safety modifications did not compete for funding. USACE then identified fish passage construction at the location as a mitigation strategy for impacts to fish species from USACE's Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. In 2019, the USACE Savannah District Commander approved removal of the lock and dam and construction of a fixed weir, in-stream fish passage, an option authorized by Section 1319 of P.L. 114-322. Stakeholder opposition due to potential changes in incidental benefits currently provided by the lock and dam has resulted in litigation between stakeholders and USACE over USACE's preferred alternative for the project. USACE Savanah District Website, "SHEP Fish Passage at New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam," https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Savannah-Harbor-Expansion/SHEP-Fish-Passage/; Steve Byerly and Craig Allison, "Lock and Dam's Fate in Question after New Ruling from Appeals Court," News 12 26 Augusta, April 19, 2023, https://www.wrdw.com/2023/04/19/corps-can-tear-down-lock-dam-appeals-court-rules/. |
| 107. |
National Wildlife Federation (NWF) v. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. May 4, 2016). |
| 108. |
The EIS noted that breaching (i.e., removing) the lower Snake River dams would require legislative changes to the agencies' current authorities and mandates, as well as appropriations to carry out such activities. USACE, Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration, Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision, 2020, https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/CRSO/. |
| 109. |
Eighth Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. Jan. 20, 2021). Joint Motion to Stay Litigation Through 2028, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. Dec. 14, 2023). |
| 110. |
The federal government did not commit to removing the dams as part of its commitments, as such an action would require authorization by Congress. However, a key element of the Columbia Basin Restoration Initiative, which the federal government commitments are to advance, is to make investments necessary to enable removal of the lower Snake River dams. Joint Motion to Stay Litigation Through 2028, Ex. A, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. Dec. 14, 2023). |
| 111. |
For example, according to BLM's facility maintenance manual, dams that are "no longer functioning as originally designed, are no longer cost effective to maintain, and do not meet a resource need ... shall be obliterated as soon as funding becomes available." BLM, Facility Maintenance, MS 9104, April 2014, pg. A-3, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual9104.pdf. Among other projects, in 2021, BLM completed an EA proposing to remove two dams that breached in recent years; the agency stated that removal would provide long-term savings in the annual and deferred maintenance program by decreasing facility assets (see "Upper Lone Tree and Double Crossing Dam Decommissioning Project," September 13, 2021, https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2011409/510). |
| 112. |
For example, NPS removed Cascades Dam in Yosemite National Park in 2003 to protect visitors from consequences of potential dam failure and to facilitate river restoration of the Merced River, a designated wild and scenic river. NPS, "Cascades Diversion Dam Removal," January 1, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/dam-removal.htm. |
| 113. |
16 U.S.C. §1604. For example, in the Environmental Assessment Trabuco District Dam Removal Project: Silverado, Holy Jim, and San Juan Creeks, FS stated that the environmental analysis complied with the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan, which was completed in 2006. FS, "Trabuco District Dam Removal Project," https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41140. |
| 114. |
Deferred maintenance is defined as maintenance that was not performed as needed or scheduled and was put off to a future time. See, for example, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, "Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 42: Deferred Maintenance and Repairs: Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 6, 14, 29 and 32," April 25, 2012, p. 5, http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/original_sffas_42.pdf. |
| 115. |
For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11636, The Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152), by Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura B. Comay, and Bill Heniff Jr. As an example, for FY2021, CRS identified that the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund supported at least two dam removal projects managed by BLM ("Joint Explanatory statement for P.L. 116-260, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021," Congressional Record, December 21, 2020). |
| 116. |
The previously mentioned lower Snake River dams are part of the Federal Columbia River Power System. |
| 117. |
Such appropriations with this prohibition were provided to FS, FWS, NOAA, and USACE. The FWS and NOAA appropriations also required written consent of the dam owner for dam removal projects, if ownership was established. |
| 118. |
January 2, 2024, NID. |
| 119. |
For BLM, see 43 C.F.R. Part 2800; for FWS, see 361 FW 2.14. Congress has enacted specific conditions related to nonfederal hydropower projects on federal lands (see herein "Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Projects Under the Federal Power Act"). |
| 120. |
Land management agencies generally are responsible for monitoring whether the holders of special use authorizations comply with these requirements. |
| 121. |
For more information, see section on "Nonfederal Hydropower" in CRS Report R42579, Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment, by Kelsi Bracmort, Adam Vann, and Charles V. Stern; CRS In Focus IF11411, The Legal Framework of the Federal Power Act, by Adam Vann; and FERC, Hydropower Primer: A Handbook of Hydropower Basics, 2017, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/hydropower-primer.pdf (hereinafter, FERC, Hydropower Primer). |
| 122. |
FERC has developed three hydropower licensing processes: the Traditional Licensing Process, the Alternative Licensing Process, and the Integrated Licensing Process, which is the default process. In general, most dams are built for a design life of 50 years. FERC, Hydropower Primer. |
| 123. |
FERC, Hydropower Primer. |
| 124. |
FERC, "Licensing, Complete List of Active Licenses," https://www.ferc.gov/licensing, updated December 2023. FERC provides relicensing data that include the number of projects with license applications expected to be filed for each fiscal year from FY2024 through FY2038. See FERC, "Licensing, Expected Relicense Projects FY2024-FY2038," https://www.ferc.gov/licensing. |
| 125. |
Jeffrey J. Opperman et al., "The Penobscot River, Maine, USA: A Basin-Scale Approach to Balancing Power Generation and Ecosystem Restoration," Ecology and Society, vol. 16, no. 3 (2011). Hereinafter, Opperman et al., "Penobscot River." |
| 126. |
See Sections 4(e), 10(a), 10(j), and 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c); and FERC et al., Interagency Task Force Report on Agency Recommendations, Conditions, and Prescriptions Under Part I of the Federal Power Act, December 2000, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/AgencyRecommendations%2CConditions%2CandPrescriptionsunderPartIoftheFederalPowerAct.pdf. |
| 127. |
These prescriptions are mandatory and must be included in the license. The licensee, however, may appeal these prescriptions to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior. FERC, Hydropower Primer. |
| 128. |
In 1995, FERC issued a policy statement concluding that it had the authority as part of a relicensing proceeding to deny a relicense application and to order a dam to be removed if FERC determines such an action is in the public interest. FERC, "Project Decommissioning at Relicensing: Policy Statement," 60 Federal Register 339, January 4, 1995. For example, FERC exercised this dam removal authority in a 1997 order requiring removal of the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in Maine (Edwards Mfg. Co., 81 FERC 61,225 (1997)). Natural Resources Council of Maine, "A Brief History of Edwards Dam," https://www.nrcm.org/programs/waters/kennebec-restoration/history-edwards-dam/. |
| 129. |
In 2004, parties negotiating the relicensing of hydropower projects in the Penobscot River watershed filed with FERC the Lower Penobscot River Comprehensive Settlement Accord, a multiparty legal agreement designed to reconfigure hydropower production on the lower Penobscot system to both restore migratory fish populations (through dam removal and by installing fish passages at certain dams) and maintain hydropower production under new licenses at selected PPL Corporation dams. The parties involved in negotiations included the PPL Corporation, Penobscot Indian Nation, State of Maine, DOI (BIA, FWS, NPS), and five nonprofit conservation organizations. Opperman et al., "Penobscot River"; 69 Federal Register 41799. |
| 130. |
Where the entity responsible for a project has indicated its intent to abandon the project but has not filed a surrender application (e.g., allowing a project to be in a state of disrepair for a long period, with no plan to put it back in operation in the foreseeable future), FERC may issue an order terminating a license or exemption by implied surrender. FERC, Hydropower Primer. |
| 131. |
A licensee must prepare an application for a license surrender as specified in 18 C.F.R. §6.1, which includes the reason for surrendering the license and a copy of the license and all amendments associated with the project. For instance, see "Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Project (FERC Project No. 77) Surrender Application and Decommissioning Plan Stakeholder Website," 2023, https://www.pottervalleysurrenderproceeding.com/. If appropriate, a NEPA document is prepared before an order is issued. FERC, "How to Surrender a License or Exemption," https://www.ferc.gov/administration-and-compliance/how-surrender-license-or-exemption. |
| 132. |
For instance, see FERC's order for modifying and approving surrender of license and removal of Klamath Hydroelectric Project facilities (FERC, H-1 P-2082-063, November 17, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/media/h-1-p-2082-063). |
| 133. |
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Hydropower Relicensing and License Surrender Data and Metadata, 2023, https://hydrosource.ornl.gov/dataset/us-hydropower-relicensing-and-license-surrender-data-and-metadata-2023. Out of the 51 hydropower projects listed as having received FERC approval for surrender through 2022, 16 of these included dam removal. For example, see the case history of the Burnham Creek Hydroelectric Project, WA in which the licensee proposed to leave the project "in place" in its current condition, with no ground-disturbing work, and without removing the dam and other facilities. No entity filed an objection to the proposed surrender and FERC issued the surrender without requiring dam removal. Todd Griset, "FERC License Surrender with Facilities in Place," January 6, 2018, https://casetext.com/analysis/ferc-license-surrender-with-facilities-in-place. |
| 134. |
Reasons may include if the licensee fails to begin construction of the project within the prescribed time (18 CFR §6.3); if the licensee fails to maintain and operate the project (18 CFR §6.4); or if the licensee fails to comply with the terms and conditions in the license and FERC has exhausted other avenues for bringing the licensee back into compliance with its license. |
| 135. |
Section 1109, Title XI, Division FF of P.L. 116-260. |
| 136. |
In addition, P.L. 117-169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act, provided funding to federal agencies for restoration activities. Federal agencies could potentially fund dam removal activities with certain funding from the act. |
| 137. |
NOAA Fisheries, "Providing Technical Support for Habitat Restoration Efforts," January 20, 2022, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/providing-technical-support-habitat-restoration-efforts. |
| 138. |
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, "Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program," https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-program. |
| 139. |
American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal. |
| 140. |
For more information, see CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework, by David M. Bearden and Jonathan L. Ramseur. |
| 141. |
American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal. |
| 142. |
NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, "$2 Million in Aquatic Restoration Projects Proposed for Polluted Housatonic River in Connecticut," February 22, 2013, https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/2-million-aquatic-restoration-projects-proposed-polluted-housatonic-river-connecticut.html. |
| 143. |
EPA, "Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)," January 26, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/supplemental-environmental-projects-seps. |
| 144. |
EPA, "Frequent Questions." |
| 145. |
This section was written by Laura Gatz, Specialist in Environmental Policy. |
| 146. |
The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Markets and Stream Barrier Removal, 2017, https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/2017_Stream_Barrier_Removal_and_Mitigation_Report.pdf. |
| 147. |
USACE, Regulatory Guidance Letter 18-01, September 25, 2018, https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/RGL-18-01-Determination-of-Compensatory-Mitigation-Credits-for-Dams-Structures-Removal.pdf. |
| 148. |
USACE, "USACE Sets the Rappahannock River Free," 2004, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596489.pdf. P.L. 106-53 authorized the removal of the Embrey Dam. |
| 149. |
Reclamation, "Reclamation Starts Savage Rapids Dam Removal," 2009, https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsroomold/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=27841. Title XII of P.L. 93-493 authorized the removal of the Savage Rapids Dam. H.Rept. 108-357 accompanying P.L. 108-137, among other appropriations bills, directed funds for the Embrey Dam and Savage Rapids Dam removal projects. |
| 150. |
For an explanation of this process, see CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand. |
| 151. |
Oliver et al., Corps Dam Removal. In some cases, after completing a feasibility study that recommends dam removal, USACE may have authority to begin construction of dam removal without additional authorization from Congress. In January 2015, USACE completed a feasibility study for the Upper Des Plaines River in Illinois, which Section 419 of the WRDA of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) authorized to address flood control and ecosystem restoration. Although USACE recommended the removal of five dams as part of the preferred alternative, USACE chose to remove the dams under its Section 206 Continuing Authorizations Program (33 U.S.C. §2330) authority, which does not require congressional authorization for construction. Other aspects of the preferred alternative were authorized in WRDA 2016 (Title I of P.L. 114-322). USACE, Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries, IL and WI: Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment, January 2015, https://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works-Projects/Des-Plaines-River-Phase-II/. USACE also removed the Sandy River Delta Dam in 2013 under the authority of Section 536 of the WRDA of 2000 (P.L. 106-541), which authorized USACE to conduct studies and implement ecosystem restoration projects necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish and wildlife habitat in the lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay estuaries. USACE, Sandy River Delta Section 536 Ecosystem Restoration Project Environmental Assessment, June 2013, https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Current/Sandy-River-Delta/. |
| 152. |
The federal assistance for dam removal described in Table A-1 is generally applicable to nonfederal dams located on nonfederal lands. |
| 153. |
Recent funding may refer to recent appropriations or funding announced by agencies. Funding announced by agencies refers to the most recent announcement of funding by the agencies as of the end of January 2024. Funding announcements by agencies may include one or more appropriations provided by Congress (e.g., a funding announcement may include appropriations provided by both an annual appropriations act and supplemental appropriations, such as those provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act [P.L. 117-58]). |
| 154. |
Some programs are available through public-private partnership organizations, including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Bring Back the Native Fish Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/bring-back-natives), Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-programColumbia Basin Water Transactions Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/columbia-basin-water-transactions-program), and National Fish Habitat Partnership's programs (http://www.fishhabitat.org/http://www.fishhabitat.org/). Some grant programs may be used to fund dam removal, but dam removal is not the primary purpose of the programs (e.g., North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants [16 U.S.C. §§4401 et seq.], grants related to National Fish Habitat Action Plans). Some FS authorities allow the agency to provide assistance for watershed or fisheries projects located on nonfederal lands in specified circumstances (e.g., Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements [16 U.S.C. §1011a]). These authorities may apply to dam removal. |