United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
EPA-840-F-16-001
December 2016
The Applicability of EPA Regulations and Funding to the
Removal of Obsolete Dams: Frequently Asked Questions
DISCLAIMER
These Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) do not impose legally binding requirements on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, tribes, or the regulated community, nor do they confer
legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public. The Clean Water Act provisions
and the EPA regulations described in this document contain legally binding requirements. These FAQs do
not constitute a regulation, nor do they change or substitute for any Clean Water Act provision or the EPA
regulations. The EPA does not endorse any specific tools or programs provided in this document.
The general description provided here may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances. Interested parties are free to raise questions about the substance of these FAQs and the
appropriateness of their application to a particular situation. The EPA retains the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in these FAQs where appropriate.
These FAQs are a living document and may be revised periodically without public notice. The EPA
welcomes public input on these FAQs at any time.
Dams provide important societal functions for drinking water supply, flood control, hydropower
generation, and recreation. Although dams are common across the country, the exact number of dams in
the U.S. is not known. What is known is that only approximately 40 large rivers in the U.S. remain
undammed and as of 2013, more than 87,000 large and/or hazardous1 dams were identified in the Army
Corps of Engineers' National Inventory of Dams (NID). Not included in this total is a significant number of
small and medium sized dams including fishing ponds, amenity lakes, farm ponds, and old mill dams.
Including all of these, estimates of the total number of dams in the U.S. range from 2,000,000 to as high
as 2,500,000. Many of these dams have long since lost their original beneficial use or purpose and may be
aging and becoming structurally unsound. In the case of mill dams, most were developed more than a
century ago when "mill acts" were passed to encourage development of the dams and impoundments
needed to support the milling industry going back as early as the 1700's. However, long after alternative
power sources were developed and the mills were closed, the dams remain. Estimates of the percentage
of dams that no longer serve a functional purpose range from 75% to as high as 90%.
As the states, tribes, and the EPA work to improve water quality in our nation's waters, it is important to
note the prevalence of these obsolete dams and to acknowledge that all dams, regardless of size, impact
the river or streams where they are located. There is currently no database that includes all dams of all
sizes in the U.S. New GIS and remote sensing tools have been used to try to fully capture the actual
1 The NID includes dams that are equal to or greater than 25 feet high and exceed 15 acre-feet of storage, equal to or greater
than 50 acre-feet of storage and greater than 6 feet high, or are hazardous in that they could cause a loss of life or a potential
loss of life and significant property or environmental damage. (The National Inventory of Dams).
Background

-------
number of dams within some watersheds to more fully understand their numbers and to try to calculate
their individual and cumulative impacts. For example, a GIS analysis of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint basin in the southeast U.S identified over 25,000 reservoirs, only 6% of which were accounted for in
the NID database.
There is a growing awareness in the U.S. of the need to address obsolete dams that impair our
waterways. Removal of these dams has been on the rise in the United States for a variety of reasons,
including ecological restoration, economic development of communities, addressing concerns with
localized flooding, improvement of recreational opportunities, restoration offish spawning and migration,
addressing safety issues for recreational users due to dangerous hydraulics below dams, response to
storm events and ensuring the safety of downstream communities. Dam removal may also be the choice
of dam owners when faced with the ongoing costs and liability for needed dam repairs, maintenance, or
required upgrades to meet new safety or environmental standards. Since the early 1900's, there have
been more than 1,300 dam removals, with more than 60 recorded in 2015 alone. In support of these
efforts and in response to an increase in the number of inquiries regarding EPA policies, regulations, and
potential funding opportunities as they relate to removal of obsolete dams, the EPA is providing the
following answers to Frequently Asked Questions.
WATER QUALITY
1. How do dams impact water quality?
Virtually every dam will have an impact on the river or stream where it is located, although the types and
extent of the impact will vary based on the size, operation, and purpose of the dam as well as the size and
general characteristics of the waterway on which it is located. In general, increased retention time of
water behind dams causes physical, thermal, and chemical changes to take place both in the impounded
and downstream waters. Nutrients, sediments, and carbon are retained for longer periods of time behind
the dam, potentially triggering harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Reservoirs can also be sinks for
mercury, pesticides, and PCBs, promoting bioaccumulation of these toxins in the food chain. Stratification
of a reservoir can depress dissolved oxygen and pH, triggering the release of anoxic byproducts, such as
iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide. These changes can lead to violations of water quality standards
and/or adverse impacts to fish and other aquatic organisms.
River and stream flows are affected by the alteration of the physical features of the waterbody. The
natural sediment regime is significantly impacted by dams that trap silt, sand, and gravel in the
impoundments and reduce the sediment supply to the waters below. These sediment-starved waters
downstream may then erode sediment from the bed and banks of the stream, impacting habitat and
aquatic life. The cumulative impact of all dams may eventually result in a lack of sediment deposition in
coastal zones, estuaries, and the ocean, where it is needed to maintain the physical and biological
integrity of these important resources.
Changes to the natural flow regime both above and below the dam also affect native flora and fauna.
These changes can be quantified as the alteration of flow magnitude, duration, frequency, timing, or rate
of change, as well as downstream temperature shifts. For instance, releases below dams may no longer
have the natural seasonal or annual variability in flow or temperature that provide signals needed for
2

-------
aquatic life to complete life cycle events such as spawning, or allowing access to the flood plains for
breeding or feeding. Alterations to natural flows below dams can also reduce the abundance and diversity
of native fish. The waters below dams may go through extended periods of low flows or no flows, which
may cause heat stress, increased risk of disease, stranding of fish, mussels and other species, increased
vulnerability of aquatic life to predation or may otherwise affect aquatic life survival. These reduced flows
have also been shown to have impacts to riparian vegetation. These waters may instead support non-
native habitat generalist species offish or other aquatic life and become more conducive to the
propagation of invasive aquatic species. Above the dam, slower, deeper, and warmer water is often no
longer suitable for native riverine species adapted to flowing, shallow, cooler water.
Dams cause the overall riverine system to become fragmented, preventing the movement of fish and
other aquatic life to feed, spawn, or migrate past the dam. Many endangered species in the U.S. including
anadromous fish and numerous mussel species are listed as imperiled by, in part, loss of habitat or
changes in the flow regime due to the presence of dams. Releases from dams can also vary dramatically
over short periods of time from high to low flows. Such rapid changes can lead to conditions unsuited for
aquatic life and increase scouring downstream. In all of these ways, dams can significantly alter a
waterbody's water quality, natural hydrology, and adversely impact its fish and aquatic life. See below for
more information on water quality standards and impairment.
2. Can the presence of a dam impact the ability of a waterbody to meet water quality
standards under the Clean Water Act? What types of water quality standards may be
affected by the presence of a dam?
Yes, the presence of a dam can affect the ability of a waterbody to meet water quality standards,
including a waterbody's designated use or the narrative or numeric criteria that protect the designated
use. The Clean Water Act directs states to develop and EPA to approve these narrative or numeric criteria
and designated uses for surface waters. (See State and EPA Water Quality Standards for more detailed
information.) When those water quality standards are not met, the water body is considered impaired.
Impairments may be due to pollution or pollutants both above and below the dam. For instance, a
designated use of 'aquatic life' in the tail waters below a dam may no longer be protected due to the
impacts of a dam on stream ecology and function or through the lack of water discharged below a dam.
Water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, temperature, nutrients, metals, and other pollutants may not
be met due to the impacts of a dam. Impounded waters may have less capacity for assimilating pollutants
than naturally flowing waters. Water quality in dam-impounded waters may retain and be affected by
higher amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus than in waters without dams. These impounded waters, once
released below the dam, may have high levels of nutrients, chlorophyll a from increased plant growth,
and ammonia. In addition, impounded waters behind the dam often experience long hydraulic residence
times and high temperatures which, if occurring with nutrient-enriched waters, can be ideal conditions
for the proliferation of cyanobacterial blooms or Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). HABs in upstream
reservoirs can then seed blooms in downstream riverine reaches. Iron Gate and Copco Reservoirs on the
Klamath River are good examples of this phenomenon.
Certain dam conditions may result in significantly lower dissolved oxygen below a dam, for instance, if
water is released from the lower level of a stratified impoundment. Depending on the method of release
from dams, the natural temperature regime is often altered, which may cause temperature and biology
3

-------
degradation. In winter, when species are adapted to cooler water temperatures, warmer water from the
tops of reservoirs may impact aquatic life growth and reproduction. Conversely, cool water released from
the lower levels of dams can alter the biota in streams adapted to warmer temperatures. Elevated
amounts of metals, including manganese and iron (as well as other anoxic byproducts), have been found
in tail waters below dams at levels that exceed numeric water quality standards. Released waters can
alter water quality conditions for significant distances (e.g., miles) downstream. Impacts from dams may
also cause narrative water quality standards, such as those protecting biological integrity, to not be met.
3.	Can states and tribes identify waters as impaired due to the presence of dams?
Yes, states and tribes should identify waters as impaired on their Integrated Reports where dams
adversely impact water quality causing water quality criteria or designated uses to not be met. As noted
above, waters above or below dams not meeting water quality criteria for parameters such as dissolved
oxygen, temperature, nutrients, ammonia, manganese, iron, or other pollutants must be identified as
impaired and listed as part of the 303(d) list. For instance, in California, two reservoirs along the Klamath
River are listed on the State's 303(d) list as impaired for microcystin (a cyanotoxin produced by the
dominant species of cyanobacteria in the reservoirs). States and tribes may also identify waters below
dams as impaired due to poor biological metrics as determined through state or tribal biological
monitoring for fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, or mussels.
Additionally, waters may be identified as impaired due to the effects of pollution, such as extreme low or
high flows below dams, and listed in Category 4C of a state's or tribe's Integrated Report as impaired due
to pollution. These types of impairments may impact a variety of designated uses, including aquatic life,
recreation, tribal cultural uses, shellfish harvesting, migration, and spawning for anadromous species such
as salmon or fishing uses. In August 2015, the EPA issued updated information to clarify how states and
tribes can address such impairments and to encourage states and tribes "to more fully monitor, assess
and report the impacts of all types of pollution to improve the opportunities for increasing resilience and
restoration" of waters impaired by pollution. See Information Concerning 2016 Clean Water Act Sections
303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions (pages 13-16).
4.	What types of improved water quality or ecological restoration can be expected after
dam removal?
Restoration of free flowing streams and rivers through dam removal can provide significant
improvements to water quality as well as ecological benefits. Once nutrients, carbon, and sediments are
no longer impounded, chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and ammonia
may again meet water quality standards. Returning rivers or streams to their natural flows can expose
shoals and riffles that provide new habitat. Sediment transport dynamics and sediment deposition
downstream are also re-established after dam removal is completed. Aquatic species benefit from the re-
establishment of flows, habitat connectivity, and water quality necessary for ecosystem function.
Commercially and culturally important anadromous fish, such as salmon, river herring, mackerel, and
American shad have been shown to quickly move upstream to reestablish spawning habitat following dam
removal. Native fluvial species adapted for flowing waters benefit from the restoration of habitat.
Terrestrial species (plants and wildlife) that rely on riverine functions may also benefit. There may also be
beach replenishment following larger dam removals near coastal zones. Some changes such as access to
4

-------
habitat can be immediate; others may take weeks to years as the system re-adjusts. Numerous examples
show improved water quality after dam removal allowing a previously impaired river to be removed from
the impaired waters list. For instance, after the Edwards Dam was removed from the impaired Kennebec
River in Maine, the State determined that the River met its designated use and was even able to reclassify
the water to a higher designated use. An innovative dam removal on the Cuyahoga River in Ohio resulted
in the formerly impaired water meeting all water quality standards.
5.	In addition to water quality and ecologic benefits, are there other community, safety,
or economic benefits from dam removal?
Yes, there are other significant benefits from the removal of obsolete dams. Such removals encourage
locally driven solutions that restore degraded waterways and can revitalize communities and their local
economy. The removal of obsolete dams has the potential to increase public safety for boating on rivers
and streams, and prevent disastrous dam failure during extreme weather events.
There are significant public safety concerns caused by "low head" dams. Although these low head dams
may appear to be harmless and in some cases even attractive as "waterfalls," there is an inherent danger
to swimmers, boaters, or anglers who may get trapped in the hydraulics below the dam. Hydraulics are
recirculating, powerful currents that can trap people and small boats and pull them under the water and
up against the dam with tremendous force. There is no official national tracking on the fatalities
associated with low head dams; however, one database maintained by Brigham Young University reports
that at least 527 deaths have occurred at 267 low head dams since the 1950s when people were unable
to escape from the dangerous hydraulics created below the dam. Numerous dams had multiple fatalities
spanning several years. Overall, more than half of those fatalities occurred in the last 15 years as water
quality has improved, and kayaking and recreation in or near water has increased. Numerous
communities have worked together to permanently eliminate these hazardous dams.
Old, obsolete, or unmaintained dams may also present a public safety hazard from dam failure. According
to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, dam failures resulting in property damage and loss of life
have occurred throughout American history. As the dams in the United States age, there is an increased
risk for potentially deadly dam failures. As extreme weather events increase, these potential failures may
increase as well. For instance, according to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control, 32 dams failed during an extreme storm event in October 2015, including 17 in Richland County
alone. These failures exacerbated already dangerous flooding conditions and caused mandatory
evacuations of communities. The threat of weakened, rain-soaked dams failing continued well after the
storm had passed, causing great concern from the threat of continued evacuations in communities
already dealing with property damage and safety concerns.
6.	Can there be adverse impacts associated with the removal of a dam?
Yes, there may be short- or long-term impacts to water quality and designated uses during or after dam
removal. Turbidity may increase both during and for a short time after the removal. Once released,
sediment that was stored behind the dam may cause abrasion or bury aquatic plants, animals, or habitat.
The sediment may have accumulated contaminants that could be released during removal.
5

-------
Other physical, biological, or social impacts may also occur. Changes to the channel morphology both
upstream and downstream of the dam may include either short-term or long-term channel incision or
aggradation. Invasive and/or exotic plant or animal species may be released into the riverine system after
the dam is removed, which can lead to the displacement of native species.
All potential impacts should be minimized to the greatest practical extent and should be thoroughly
evaluated by project proponents during applicable state and federal permitting processes (e.g. Clean
Water Act Section 404, state Section 401 water quality certification, etc.). Each dam removal should be
carefully evaluated to determine if the benefits of removal outweigh impacts that may occur during and
after the removal.
7. Does every dam removal require a variance from water quality standards?
No, removing a dam does not require a water quality standards variance. On August 21, 2015, the water
quality standards regulations were revised to include a new section, 40 CFR 131.14, with provisions for
states and authorized tribes to adopt a water quality standards variance. The EPA included in its
regulation a new factor that states can use when justifying the need for a variance. Specifically, this
section provides that a state or authorized tribe may adopt a water quality standards variance if it
demonstrates that attaining the designated use and criterion is not feasible throughout the term of the
variance because "[ajctions necessary to facilitate lake, wetland, or stream restoration through dam
removal or other significant reconfiguration activities preclude attainment of the designated use and
criterion while the actions are being implemented." The EPA added this new factor to address situations
when states and authorized tribes may want to adopt a water quality standards variance because they
expect a time-limited exceedance of a criterion when removing a dam or during significant wetlands, lake,
or stream reconfiguration/restoration efforts.
This variance provision provides a tool that states or tribes can use to address water quality standards
during a significant dam removal. That variance, once adopted, could be relied upon by a state or
authorized tribe when issuing certifications under Clean Water Act Section 401 in connection with an
application for a federal license or permit. However, it should be noted that it is not required for states or
authorized tribes to adopt a variance in order to remove a dam; it is simply an option provided when
doing so. States and authorized tribes may also include conditions in a Section 401 certification that
provide protection for water quality during the dam removal. While a variance is not required in order to
establish conditions, if a state or authorized tribe chooses to adopt a variance for the water affected by
the dam removal, the conditions of the variance can be used when developing conditions for the Section
401 certifications. See below for more information on Section 404 and Section 401.
PERMITTING
8. What kind of federal permit do I need to apply for to remove a dam?
A Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is required before dredged or fill material may be discharged into
waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain
farming and forestry activities). Activities in waters of the United States regulated under Section 404
include fill for water resource projects such as dams and levees and potentially the release of sediment
6

-------
from or through a dam. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 05-04 on the
breaching of dams and the discharge of sediments from or through a dam clarifies that activities that
allow for a discharge of sediment that has the effect of either replacing any portion of a water of the
United States with dry land or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of a water (i.e. more than a
de minimis discharge) will generally require a Section 404 permit.
There are two types of Section 404 permits that may be used to authorize a dam removal project:
individual permits or general permits such as Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration,
Establishment, and Enhancement Activities). The decision to review a proposed dam removal project
under the provisions of an individual permit or a general permit depends on the characteristics of the
specific project. Larger, more complex projects will likely be reviewed under the individual permit process,
while general permits such as NWPs or regional general permits are often but not always used for smaller,
more straightforward dam removals. Factors that may be considered include: whether contaminants may
be present in sediment held behind the dam; volume and grain size distribution of sediment held behind
the dam; nature and sensitivity of aquatic species that may be affected by the dam removal; presence of
invasive or exotic plant or animal species whose distribution is restricted to only the upstream or
downstream side of the dam; timing of life cycle events of species that may be affected (e.g., spawning or
migration); and potential changes to geomorphology and hydrology of tributaries.
In June 2016, a new NWP specifically for low head dam removal was proposed by the Corps. The final
reauthorization of all of the NWPs will go into effect March 19, 2017, and may or may not include the new
NWP for low head dam removal. Corps districts may elect to place regional conditions on the use of this
or any other NWP, and they may also choose to revoke the use of a particular NWP in their district
entirely. Additionally, states and tribes may include conditions of their own in a Section 401 certification
that provide protection for water quality during the dam removal, and these conditions may become part
of the Section 404 permit. These conditions may also be used in other federal actions associated with
dam removal, such as revocation of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license for a dam. In
addition, the federal permitting process or federal funding may consider other federal statutes such as
the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the
National H istoric Preservation Act. Additional reviews and/or consultation may be required. See below for
more information on Section 401 certifications.
9. How do you begin the process to apply for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit?
How long does it take?
The first step in the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory review process for dam removal projects is to
contact the appropriate Corps of Engineers district office and schedule a pre-application meeting. During
that meeting, the project proponent will receive information regarding permitting options and permit
application requirements. A clear and open line of communication with the Corps of Engineers district is
the best way to facilitate timely and accurate Section 404 regulatory review of the proposed project. The
length of the Section 404 regulatory review process will depend in large part upon the type of permit
required (e.g. individual permit, NWP, or regional general permit), the complexity of the proposed
project, quality and thoroughness of information submitted by the applicant for review, and the
applicant's responsiveness to requests for information from the Corps. To determine appropriate options
for Section 404 permitting of proposed dam removal projects, project proponents should contact the
7

-------
Corps of Engineers district with authority in the area where the proposed project is located. The following
website can help identify Corps of Engineers district offices by location:
http://www.usace.armv.mil/Contact/Office-Locator/
10.	What monitoring or testing is required for dam removal? What if there are
contaminants accumulated in sediment behind the dam?
Specific requirements for monitoring or testing for a dam removal project will vary based on the
conditions of the individual project and will be determined during the regulatory authorization process
(e.g. Clean Water Act Section 404, applicable state authorizations, etc.). Monitoring may include baseline
monitoring prior to dam removal, as well as post-project monitoring necessary to document changes to
the river or stream as a result of the project. The level of rigor required for monitoring and the specific
parameters to be monitored will depend largely on the size and complexity of the project and the site-
specific conditions. Monitoring may include physical (e.g., sediment volume and texture stored behind
the dam), chemical (e.g., dissolved oxygen, temperature, metals), and/or biological parameters (e.g., fish,
benthic macroinvertebrates, and mussels).
Under Clean Water Act Section 404, a sediment quality evaluation is called for if there is reason to believe
that contaminants could be present in the sediment accumulated behind the dam. Such a "reason to
believe" could be informed by current or historical land uses in the watershed surrounding and upstream
of the impoundment, historical spills, contemporary discharges to the impoundment or upstream waters,
or other factors. The regulations at 40 CFR Subpart G (Sections 230.60 and 230.61) generally describe this
evaluation and testing. Additional detail is provided in the guidance known as the Inland Testing Manual,
which was jointly developed by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers (EPA document # EPA-823-B-98-004).
If contaminants are present in the sediment behind the dam, the project proponent will need to consider
the potential for adverse impacts (e.g., to aquatic species, recreational users, or municipal water supply
intakes) that could result from mobilizing or disturbing the sediment. An evaluation of the levels of
contaminants present will be necessary. The nature of the contaminants and potential for adverse
impacts will be weighed by the Corps of Engineers during permitting and may inform authorized methods
of containment or removal, or even whether the project should be authorized.
11.	Can I get mitigation credit for dam removal?
Whether mitigation credit may be considered for dam removal depends on the nature of the specific
project itself, and review by the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, and the
state and federal regulatory and/or resource agencies. Compensatory mitigation for the Clean Water Act
Section 404 regulatory program is considered on a project-by-project basis as offsetting unavoidable
impacts of an authorized discharge by replacing the loss of functions in the watershed. The 2008 Federal
Mitigation Rule established a preferential hierarchy for compensatory mitigation to first be provided by
mitigation banks, then in-lieu fee programs, followed by permittee-responsible mitigation. Dam removal
as a means to generate mitigation credits in mitigation banks, in-lieu fee projects, or permittee-
responsible mitigation projects has been considered in some cases, subject to the policies and guidelines
of the applicable Corps of Engineers district and other reviewing agencies.
8

-------
12.	Do I have to mitigate for removal of wetlands that were created by the dam?
Requirements to mitigate for loss of wetlands upstream of the dam caused by its removal will depend on
the permitting mechanism, policies, and guidelines of the applicable Corps of Engineers district, review by
other state and federal regulatory and resource agencies, and the nature of the specific dam removal
project. In many cases, removal of the dam and the consequent restoration of the aquatic functions
performed by the affected stream or river is itself considered a restoration, and impacts to aquatic
resources created by the dam is a necessary consequence. However, where aquatic resources of
particular value have been established in association with the dam, the Corps of Engineers district and
EPA may recommend measures to retain and protect those resources if possible, and to mitigate for any
unavoidable impacts to them.
13.	Does the state have to issue a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification
for dam removal?
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that any applicant for a federal license or permit proposing to
conduct any activity that "may result in any discharge" into navigable waters must obtain a certification
from the state or tribe in which the discharge originates ensuring that the discharge will comply with
various provisions of the Clean Water Act, including Sections 301 and 303. The federal license or permit
may not be issued unless the state(s) or tribe(s) has granted or waived certification. The certification shall
include conditions, e.g., "effluent limitations or other limitations," necessary to ensure that the permit
will comply with the state or tribal water quality standards or other appropriate requirements of state or
tribal law. Such conditions must be included in the federal license or permit. If the project would take
place in the coastal zone, or have the potential to affect the coastal zone, the extent to which the activity
is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a state's approved
coastal zone management plan would need to be evaluated pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. The significance of the consistency determination varies depending on
whether a federal license or permit is involved (in comparison to a direct federal agency action). 401
certifications might include a wide range of specific conditions including, but not limited to, requirements
for monitoring, revegetation, quality assurance plans, equipment used, and corrective measures.
Appendix A lists a few example conditions previously included in various state 401 certifications for dam
removal projects. Note that states generally issue 401 certification for a NWP at the time the NWP was
implemented, in which case a separate project 401 certification would not be necessary.
14.	Are there other state law requirements applicable to dam removal?
Many states have provisions within their state laws that specifically apply to dam removal projects, but
each state varies in its specific requirements for dam removal. States may have other laws and local
ordinances that are not specific to dam removal, such as buffer requirements, that may also be applicable
to a dam removal project. Project proponents should consider all applicable state and local laws on a
project by project basis.
9

-------
15. Are there any National Environmental Policy Act reviews required for dam removal?
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process begins when a federal agency develops a
proposal to take a major federal action, or when a federal action such as permitting is involved. These
actions are defined under 40 CFR Section 1508.18. For dam removal projects, the most common type of
actions that would trigger NEPA would include application for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit or
use of federal funds for the project.
Environmental review of a project under NEPA could involve three different levels of analysis: Categorical
Exclusion (CATEX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The level of
effort, review time, and public comment period varies depending on the level of NEPA analysis required.
The issuance of a CATEX is the least rigorous process involving minimal environmental risk and analysis,
and typically no public review requirements. Development of an EA or EIS can require substantially more
time and effort than CATEXs and would require that the federal agency evaluate the 'no action' and other
feasible alternatives. Issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for a dam removal project may
involve a Nationwide Permit (NWP) or an Individual Permit (IP). NEPA analyses are conducted for NWPs
when they are issued by the Corps of Engineers every five years. If a NWP is used for a dam removal
project, then no additional NEPA would be needed for issuance of the Section 404 permit. However, if a
dam removal project involves an IP, the Corps of Engineers evaluates the potential impacts from the
project and determines the level of significance of the impacts before making a decision on the level of
NEPA review required. In many cases an EA would be an appropriate level of analysis. However, for more
complex or controversial projects where there are potentially significant impacts, an EIS may be required.
On projects that require a 404 permit, the federal agency providing the funding may adopt the Corps of
Engineers NEPA document to avoid duplication, and vice-versa.
EPA Related Funding
16. Can Clean Water Act Section 319 funds be used to support dam removal?
Yes, Clean Water Act Section 319 grants issued to states, territories, and tribes may be used for dam
removal. Section 319 provides grants to support a wide variety of activities related to addressing nonpoint
source pollution, including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology
transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source
implementation projects. The EPA's guidance, "Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for
States and Territories," includes hydrologic modification as a type of nonpoint source pollution and
therefore projects are potentially eligible for funding.
Potential 319 funding applicants should note that dam removal projects need to be consistent with a
state's written Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan. These documents are five-year strategic
plans that describe the state's priorities for its nonpoint source program. Some states may have already
explicitly included hydrologic modification, and even dam removal, in their nonpoint source program.
Even in states that do not explicitly discuss hydrologic modification or dam removal as priorities in their
Nonpoint Source Management Plan documents, dam removal projects could be eligible for 319 funding.
All states have prioritized implementation of watershed-based plans. The EPA requires states to use at
least half of their annual 319 grant funds to implement watershed projects guided by watershed-based
10

-------
plans. Dam removal projects that are included in local watershed-based plans that are consistent with
EPA Guidelines would also be eligible for 319 funds.
For funding, dam removal project proposals should be sent to state nonpoint source agencies, usually as
part of an annual competitive Request for Proposals process. Project applicants should carefully review
individual state application requirements, and meet early with their state nonpoint source program staff
to discuss proposed dam removal projects. The following are some successful Section 319-funded dam
removal projects that helped restore impaired waters:
•	https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/ma eel.pdf
•	https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/nh maxwell.pdf
•	https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/mi thornapple.pdf
•	https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-ll/documents/pa manatawny.pdf
17.	Are dam removal projects eligible for the Five Star and Urban Water Restoration
Grant Program?
Yes, a dam removal project could be eligible for support if it met the requirements of the Five Star Grant
Program. The program seeks to develop community capacity by providing modest assistance to diverse
local partnerships for river, wetlands, riparian, forest and coastal restoration, and wildlife conservation.
The program gives priority to projects that improve and protect urban waterways in overburdened or
economically distressed communities, so dam removals that are part of such efforts would likely be given
the highest consideration. For more information on this program and to get updates on deadlines for
applications, see https://www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-
grant-program-2016. There are key elements that should be present in a dam removal restoration project
to be eligible, including:
•	On-the-ground restoration
•	Integrated education, outreach, and training into the restoration project through broad
community engagement activities
•	Measurable ecological, educational, and community benefits
•	An appropriate and diverse partnership of five or more organizations (public and private, including
the applicant) that exists to implement the project, leverages additional contributions, and
sustains the project after the life of the grant
•	Community partnerships that directly engage a diverse group of partners to achieve ecological
and specific educational outcomes including partnerships among upstream and downstream
communities
•	Demonstration that the project will advance existing local planning and development for resilient
communities and/or propose to foster new collaborations to coordinate a diverse stakeholder
partnership that develops new plans
18.	Can Wetland Program Development Grants be used by states for dam removal?
The Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDGs) provide eligible applicants an opportunity to
conduct projects that promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations,
11

-------
experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent,
prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. These grants, provided to state, tribal, and local
government agencies, as well as interstate/intertribal entities, could fund studies to identify how dam
removal can improve wetland restoration and also include those options in states' wetland protection
plans. Therefore, WPDGs may be a potential source of funding for states and tribes that want to develop
their in-house technical expertise (e.g., obtain training) and/or conduct scientific studies about the effects
of dam removal. For instance, states have used WPDGs to conduct studies to monitor and assess the
impacts of small impoundments in tailwaters below dams (see references). However, use of WPDGs for
construction activities (including restoration projects) is specifically prohibited, unless those efforts are
being undertaken as part of a scientific demonstration or "study." In general, WPDGs are not intended to
financially support individual, on-the-ground projects, even if they restore wetlands or waterbodies;
WPDGs are targeted towards building technical and programmatic capacity of state and tribal water
agencies (primarily) and secondarily, local government agencies. It should be noted that there is a
distinction between wetland program "development" and program "implementation" activities and EPA
refrains from funding the latter category of activities.
19. Would dam removals be an acceptable supplemental environmental project (SEP) in
the settlement of a federal enforcement action?
Yes, in certain circumstances, dam removals have the potential to meet the conditions set forth in the
EPA's March 10, 2015, National Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy Update (SEP Policy).
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) are defined, in part, as "environmentally beneficial
projects...which the defendant, or any other third party, is not otherwise legally required to perform," and
there is no doubt that dam removal projects can provide significant environmental benefits, such as
improved water quality, reduction of localized flooding, and restoration of aquatic habitats.
There are several significant factors that must be considered when reviewing a potential project. The SEP
Policy provides guidance for EPA's enforcement personnel, and for the regulated community, on how and
when EPA may consider including a SEP in a civil enforcement settlement. A SEP is a project performed
voluntarily by a defendant/respondent in an enforcement action, and EPA can never require that a SEP be
part of a settlement, nor can EPA require a specific SEP. SEPs must be projects that go beyond what is
required for compliance, and there are several important conditions that must be met before a project
can be considered as a SEP. Most importantly, SEPs must have a "nexus," or connection, to the particular
violations being resolved in the settlement, and provide an environmental or public health benefit related
to the impacts of those violations of environmental laws. In addition, generally SEPs must be performed
within fifty (50) miles of the site of the violation to ensure that the community placed at risk by the
violations receives the benefit of the SEP.
Whether a dam removal project would be an appropriate element of a particular settlement must be
determined in the context of the environmental enforcement settlement for which the project has been
proposed. Violations that have impacted, or could have impacted, the waterway containing the dam
might have a nexus to a dam removal project. For example, there might be a nexus for a dam removal
project in a Clean Water Act settlement for violations that resulted in a fish kill, where removing the dam
will enhance the condition of the ecosystem, restore fish passage for spawning, help to restore the fish
population, and, in certain cases, provide for protection of endangered species. Where dam removal is
12

-------
done at or near water supply intakes, it may be possible to demonstrate improvements to drinking water
and a nexus to Safe Drinking Water Act violations. Dam removal projects that will result in the restoration
of wetlands and improvements in water quality, ecosystems, and habitat may have a nexus in settlements
resolving wetlands violations. Waters impounded behind dams have been shown to have adverse impacts
on air quality from the generation of greenhouse gasses such as methane. Since dam removals have the
potential to reduce methane emissions, it may even be possible to demonstrate a nexus for a dam
removal project in a Clean Air Act settlement resolving violations related to methane or other greenhouse
gases, and, if so, since such SEPs restore natural ecosystem function, they could have the added benefit of
helping make communities more resilient to the effects of climate change. As noted, the potential for
including a dam removal project as a SEP in a settlement will depend on the specific facts of the case at
hand, the location of the violations, and the willingness of the defendant/respondent to perform a project
that is not legally required.
One of the unique features of dam removal projects is the tremendous variability in the size of dams and
the related costs of removal, providing potential opportunities for inclusion as SEPs in a wide range of
settlements. For instance, the median cost of dam removal projects can range from tens of thousands of
dollars for removal of a two- to five-foot high dam, to hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) for the
removal of larger dams. Multiple federal, state, academic, and non-governmental groups have partnered
to develop tools to assist in review of dam removal prioritization and selection that could aid in analyzing
whether there might be an opportunity for a SEP in a particular enforcement situation, and could even
help target opportunities that could benefit overburdened communities. These include, for instance, the
Southeast Aquatic Connectivity Assessment Project (The SEACAP Tool) and the Chesapeake Fish Passage
Prioritization tool.
Considering the various sources of potential federal funding for dam removal, care must be taken to
ensure that a SEP does not augment federal funding that could pay for the same work (e.g., a Section 319
grant). In addition, SEPs may not be used to satisfy EPA's or another federal agency's obligation to
perform a particular activity, nor can SEPs provide additional resources to support specific activities
performed by EPA employees or EPA contractors. SEPs cannot be used to help accomplish work that a
federal agency is already doing or to perform work on federally owned property.
The violations at issue and the facts of the specific settlement will be important factors in determining
whether a nexus for a dam removal project exists. For this reason, every SEP proposal has to be evaluated
on a case-by-case, fact-specific basis, and there can be no pre-approved or off-the-shelf SEPs. The nexus
requirement is vital as it ensures the appropriate use of EPA's prosecutorial discretion. This discretion
does not extend to the inclusion of SEPs that do not have a strong nexus to the violations being resolved.
Nexus ensures that the SEP is not perceived as a diversion of penalty funds to a project, in violation of the
Miscellaneous Receipts Act.
20. Would dam removals be an acceptable supplemental environmental project (SEP) in
the settlement of a state enforcement action?
Dam removals may certainly be appropriate SEPs in state enforcement actions, and have the potential to
meet individual state policies that are similar to the federal SEP Policy. State policies may also differ from
the federal SEP Policy, since federal fiscal law constraints would not directly apply. Contact individual
states for more information on state policies.
13

-------
Appendix A
The following are examples of conditions that states might consider including in state 401 certifications
for dam removal projects, if appropriate. The appropriateness of any condition will depend on the specific
circumstances of each activity, potential discharge, and permit:
The project complies with all water quality standards, ground water standards, sediment quality
standards, and other appropriate requirements of state law that are related to compliance with
such standards.
The certification does not authorize any project work that may impact water quality (e.g.
hatcheries, riparian habitat restoration projects, etc.) beyond those activities specifically identified
in this certification.
The project will include short- and long-term compliance and effectiveness monitoring program.
Revegetation component that creates diverse fish and wildlife habitat, provides stream shading,
controls stream bank erosion, and moderates water velocities.
The project shall prepare a quality assurance project plan, including a map of the sampling
locations, the purpose of the monitoring, sampling frequency, sampling procedures and
equipment, analytical methods, quality control procedures, data handling, data assessment
procedures, and reporting protocols.
The project will install fish exclusionary devices.
The project will excavate and stabilize to prevent head cutting in the upstream channel, and to
establish the flow of the creek and into a stable channel as the reservoir surface elevation drops.
The project will remove the concrete dam using a concrete diamond wire saw.
The project will revegetate with native plants suitable for the specific location. The revegetation
areas will be divided into planting zones.
The project will implement a program to provide for the prevention, suppression, containment,
eradication, and or control of invasive, non-native plant species. The project should include
procedures to assess for and limit the release of non-native, invasive plant and animal species.
None of the projects activity should substantially disrupt the movement of those species of
aquatic life indigenous to the water body.
If the project operations cause a water quality problem that results in distressed or dying fish,
then the operator must immediately stop operations, take corrective measures, collect fish
specimens and water samples, and notify appropriate agencies.
The project area must protect riparian, wetland, and shoreline vegetation to the maximum extent
practicable by minimizing the impact footprint, designating staging areas, fencing construction
areas, and using alternative equipment.
14

-------
References
American Rivers. Frequently Asked Questions about Removing Dams. Retrieved from
https://www.americanrivers.org/conservation-resources/river-restoration/removing-dams-faqs/
American Rivers. Map of U.S. Dams Removed Since 1916. Retrieved from
https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring-damaged-rivers/dam-removal-map/
American Rivers. (2016). 62 Dams Removed to Restore Rivers in 2015; Summary of Dam Removals in the
U.S. from 1912 - 2015. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/american-rivers-website/wp-
content/u ploads/2016/02/02122410/DamsRemoved 1999-2015.pdf
Arwine, D., Sparks, K. J., James, R. J., Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. (2006).
Probabilistic Monitoring of Streams Below Small Impoundments in Tennessee. Retrieved from
https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/environment/attachments/isp report.pdf
Association of State Dam Safety Officials. (2016). Dam Failures and Incidents. Retrieved September 21,
2016 http://www.damsafety.org/news/?p=412f29c8-3fd8-4529-b5c9-8d47364clf3e
Beaulieu, Jake J., Smolenski, Rebecca L., Nietch, Christopher T., Townsend-Small, Amy, Elovitz, Michael S.
(2014). "High Methane Emissions from a Midlatitude Reservoir Draining an Agricultural Watershed."
Environmental Science and Technology
Benke, A. C. (1990). A perspective on America's vanishing streams. Journal of the North American
BenthologicalSociety, 9(1), 77-88. doi:10.2307/1467936
Boston Society of Civil Engineers. Raising the Grade in Massachusetts Action Steps for Improved
Infrastructure. Retrieved from
http://www.engineers.org/tec/file/Raising%20the%20Grade%20in%20MA%20Brochure%20%28Fi
nal%204-24-12%29.pdf
City of Kent, Ohio. Cuyahoga River Restoration Project Final Summary. Retrieved from
http://www.kentohio.org/reports/dam.asp
Costigan, K. H., Ruffing, C. M., Perkin, J. S., & Daniels, M. D. (2014). Rapid Response of a Sand-Dominated
River to Installation and Removal of a Temporary Run-of-the-River Dam. River Research and
Applications, 32, 110-124. doi:10.1002/rra.2843
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (2007). Dam Removal in Massachusetts, A basic
guide for project components. Retrieved from
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/water/damremoval-guidance.pdf
Floenke, K. M. (2012). A GIS Tool Prioritizing Dams for Removal within the State of North Carolina. Duke
University. Retrieved from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/5337
Floenke, K. M., Kumar, M., & Batt, L. (2014). A GIS based approach for prioritizing dams for potential
removal. Ecological Engineering, 64, 27-36.
ICF Consulting (2005). A Summary of Existing Research on Low-Head Dam Removal Projects; Requested by
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/25-25(14) FR.pdf
Ignatius, A., & Stallins, J. A. (2011). Assessing Spatial FlydrologicaI Data Integration to Characterize
Geographic Trends in Small Reservoirs in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.
Southeastern Geographer, 51(3), 371-393. doi:10.1353/sgo.2011.0028
Kern, E., Guymon, J., Walbridge, C., & Tschantz, D. B. Locations of Fatalities at Submerged Hydraulic
Jumps. Brigham Young University. Retrieved from http://krcproiect.groups.et.byu.net/browse.php
15

-------
Keverum, K. A., & Smalley, T. (2012). The Drowning Machine. Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Boat and Water Safety (Ed.). Retrieved from
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/education safety/safety/boatwater/d rowningmachine.pdf
Kornis, M. S., Weidel, B. C., Powers, S. M., Keiebel, M. W., Cline, T. J., Fox, J. M., & Kitchell, J. F. (2015).
Fish community dynamics following dam removal in a fragmented agricultural stream. Aquatic
Science, 77, 465-480. doi:10.1007/s0027-014-0391-2
Natural Resources Council of Maine. A Brief History of Edwards Dam. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcm.org/proiects-hot-issues/healthy-waters/edwards-dam-and-kennebec-
restoration/a-brief-history-of-ed wards-dam/
North Carolina Department of Environment and Flealth, Division of Water Quality (2013). Assessing
Impacts Due to Small Impoundments in North Carolina. Retrieved from
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Qua I ity/Surface%20Water%20Protection/PDU/Grant%20Final%20 Reports/Final
%20Report%20Impoundments 20130228.pdf
Poff, N. L., & Flart, D. D. (2002). Flow Dams Vary and Why It Matters for the Emerging Science of Dam
Removal. Bioscience, 52(8), 659-668.
Southeast Aquatic Resource Partnership (2016). Southeast Aquatic Connectivity Program, The SEACAP
Tool. Retrieved from http://southeastaquatics.net/sarps-programs/southeast-aquatic-
connectivity-assessment-program-seacap
The Nature Conservancy, Chesapeake Fish Passage Prioritization
http://maps.tnc.org/EROF ChesapeakeFPP/
Tuckerman, S., & Zawiski, B. (2007). Case Studies of Dam Removal and TMDLs: Process and Results. J.
Great Lakes Res., 33(Special Issue 2), 103-116.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2013). National Inventory of Dams.
http://nid.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=838:l:0::NQ::APP ORGANIZATION TYPE.P12 ORGANIZA
TI0N:15
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States
and Territories. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/319-gu idelines-fyl4.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015). Issuance of the 2015 Update to the 1998 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/sepupdatedpolicyl5.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Information Concerning 2016 Clean Water Act Sections
303(d0, 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. Retrieved
from https://www.epa. gov/sites/prod uction/files/2015-10/docu ments/2016-i r-memo-and-cover-
memo-8 13 2015.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). The Five Star and Urban Waters Restoration Grant
Program - 2016. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners/five-star-and-urban-
waters-restoration-grant-program-2016
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. America's Mussels: Silent Sentinels. April 14, 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/mussels.html
Walter, R. C., & Merritts, D. J. (2008). Natural Streams and the Legacy of Water-Powered Mills. Science,
319(5861), 299-304. doi:10.1126/science.H51716
16

-------