[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62566-62572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26566]
[[Page 62565]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VII
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
Army Corps of Engineers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and
Resource Management; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 /
Notices
[[Page 62566]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land
and Resource Management
AGENCIES: Office of the Secretary, USDA; National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce; Office of the Secretary, DOD;
Office of the Secretary, Energy; Office of the Secretary, Interior;
Office of the Administrator, EPA; Resource Stewardship, TVA; Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, COE.
ACTION: Notice of final policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy and
the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Army Corps of Engineers are adopting a unified
Federal policy on watershed management. This policy, which provides a
framework for a watershed approach to Federal land and resource
management activities, is one of the action items in the President's
Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters. The
final policy has been revised in response to public comments on the
proposed policy published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2000
(65 FR 8834).
DATES: This policy is effective October 18, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final policy are available electronically from
the Internet/World Wide Web at www.cleanwater.gov/ufp or by contacting
USDA-Forest Service, Content Analysis Enterprise Team, Attn: UFP,
Building 2, Suite 295, 5500 Amelia Earhart Drive, Salt Lake City, UT
84116; (801) 517-1037. Individuals who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-
800-877-8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Janes, Rangelands, Soil and Water
Group, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, (202)
452-7752, or Karen Solari, Watershed and Air Management Staff, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, (202) 205-0879. Individuals who use
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final unified Federal policy on
watershed management set out at the end of this notice is intended to
provide a framework to enhance watershed management for the protection
of water quality and the health of aquatic ecosystems on Federal lands.
This policy is one of the 111 action items in the President's February
1998 Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's
Waters.
Background
More than 800 million acres of the Nation's land are managed by
Federal agencies. These public lands contain significant physical and
biological resources and are important to millions of Americans for
multiple uses, such as drinking water, irrigation, transportation,
recreation, and wildlife habitat. Federal land managers are responsible
for protecting and restoring these resources.
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972,
as amended, which is commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act, is to
``restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters.''
Although Federal agencies are working to implement the applicable
requirements of the Clean Water Act, further progress is needed both to
prevent degradation of high quality waters and sensitive aquatic
ecosystems and to accelerate the restoration of degraded water
resources. This policy provides a foundation to help ensure that
Federal land and resource management activities meet these goals and
that the Federal government serves as a model for water quality
stewardship.
We believe that the unified watershed-based approach outlined in
this policy provides a strong foundation for achieving these goals.
Though this policy is not intended to be a rule, the proposed
policy was published for notice and public comment in the February 22,
2000, Federal Register (65 FR 8834). We also posted the policy on the
World Wide Web at www.cleanwater.gov/ufp and mailed it to States,
Tribes, environmental groups, and industry associations. We conducted
eleven regional meetings; met with a number of organizations, such as
the Western Governors' Association; and conducted meetings and
conference calls with Tribal government representatives.
We received 248 responses from 126 organizations and 122
individuals on the proposed policy. Comments represented a diverse set
of interests from across the country, including private citizens;
State, Tribal and local governments; and industry and environmental
groups. An interagency team reviewed and evaluated the comments and
made changes to the policy based on these comments.
The majority of the commenters supported the overall goal of the
policy to improve water quality on Federal lands through an emphasis on
a watershed-based approach to land and resource management. Many
commenters suggested language and content changes intended to improve
the policy. The interagency review team identified six major questions
or issue categories.
1. Do the participating agencies have the authority to develop
and implement this policy?
2. How does the policy affect Tribal rights and interests?
3. What role will the States, Tribes, and local governments have
in working with the Federal agencies to implement the policy?
4. What impacts will this policy have on the multiple uses of
Federal lands?
5. How will the policy be implemented?
6. How will the public participate in implementing the policy?
The following section, Summary of Comments and Responses, includes
a discussion of these issues and our response to the public comments.
This section also describes all substantive changes made to the
proposed policy based on the public comments and the Federal agencies'
review of the policy. The text of the final policy is set out at the
end of this notice.
Summary of Comments and Responses
1. Do the participating agencies have the authority to develop and
implement this policy?
Comments: Some respondents asserted that the Clean Water Action
Plan (CWAP) and the Unified Federal Policy (UFP) violate Congressional
[[Page 62567]]
mandates regarding multiple use, sustained yield and planning
procedures found in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43
U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq. (FLPMA), the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield
Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 531 et seq. (MUSYA), and the National Forest
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1600 et seq. (NFMA).
Response: As the agencies have explained in the CWAP itself, the
CWAP is not a regulation and it does not establish a regulatory
program. Rather, it is a call to action that ``builds on the solid
foundation of existing clean water programs'' and seeks to ``restore
and protect water resources'' within the framework of existing laws and
regulations. Similarly, the UFP is intended to enhance the
implementation of existing laws and improve coordination of Federal
watershed management activities with States, Tribes, and interested
stakeholders. In other words, nothing in the UFP (or the CWAP) directs
agencies to violate any existing laws or regulations. For instance, the
UFP calls upon agencies to enhance State, Tribal and public
participation opportunities during the resource management decision-
making process. However, any such enhancement must be fully consistent
with resource management decision-making processes established by FLPMA
and other applicable laws and their implementing regulations. As
another example, the UFP asks agencies to employ collaborative
decision-making processes that utilize scientific knowledge and
understanding gained from watershed assessments to develop federal land
management decisions. Again, any such collaboration would be structured
and undertaken only in accordance with applicable laws such as FLPMA,
MUSYA, and NFMA and their implementing regulations.
Comments: Some respondents commented that CWAP and, therefore, the
UFP violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (ICA).
Response: Neither the CWAP nor the UFP is a regulation. Therefore,
the formal requirements of APA applicable to the promulgation of
government regulations do not apply. In contrast to a regulation, which
would establish legally enforceable requirements, the UFP asserts goals
and aspirations consistent with existing laws and regulations. The UFP
does not identify or propose specific projects that would require
consultation with local governments under the ICA. The Federal agencies
have widely publicized the policy and encouraged public discussion and
feedback in order to have the widest possible participation of the
public, including States and Tribes, in energizing the agencies'
efforts to restore America's waters. Thus, States and Tribes were
invited to participate in the UFP's development by commenting on a
``working draft'' policy in June of 1999, eight months before
publication of the proposed policy in February 22, 2000 Federal
Register (65 FR 8334). Their comments were considered during the
preparation of both the proposed and final policies.
Comments: Some respondents commented that the CWAP and, therefore,
the UFP violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Response: The CWAP and the UFP provide a framework for energizing
the agencies' efforts to restore the nation's waters pursuant to
existing laws and regulations. As such, the CWAP and the UFP are broad
policy statements that speak in general concepts and principles, do not
establish or alter existing agency programs, and are not defined to the
point that they can be meaningfully analyzed. The agencies will fully
comply with NEPA and other applicable laws at the appropriate time,
such as when the UFP's policies are used to develop proposals for
specific policies, programs, or projects. In other words, the Federal
agencies fully intend to comply with NEPA at the appropriate time for
all actions that require such compliance.
Comments: Some respondents asserted that the CWAP and, therefore,
the UFP violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on the taking of
private property.
Response: Nothing in either the CWAP or the UFP deprives anyone of
individual property rights or would deny any owner of property the
economic use of that property. The CWAP and the UFP do not require,
authorize, or even suggest the taking of private property by any
governmental agency for any purpose. The UFP, by its terms, creates no
enforceable rights. The UFP applies only to Federal land and resources,
not to private property. The UFP does not prohibit or restrict any
activity on private property.
Comments: Some respondents asserted that the CWAP and, therefore,
the UFP violate the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because the effect
of the CWAP for any significant impact on small entities and businesses
was not analyzed.
Response: Because neither the CWAP nor the UFP is a regulation, the
RFA does not apply to them. The RFA is triggered only ``[w]henever an
agency is required * * * to publish general notice of proposed
rulemaking for any proposed rule * * *'' 5 U.S.C. 603(a). The CWAP and
the UFP are policies, not rules, and therefore are not subject to RFA.
Comments: Several respondents questioned whether the authority
exists for some of the activities in the policy; specifically, the
authority to conduct watershed assessments and to apply special
designations.
Response: Federal agencies have a variety of authorities to conduct
watershed assessments and apply special designations. For example, in
Public Law 94-579 (October 21, 1976), the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, Title II--Land Use Planning, Inventory and
Identification, Section 201(a), Congress directed that the Secretary of
the Interior ``shall prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an
inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values.'' In
Title II, Section 202(c)(3), Congress directed the Secretary of the
Interior to ``give priority to the designation and protection of areas
of critical environmental concern.'' In the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1602), Section 5--Program Recommendations,
Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to ``recognize the
fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the quality
of soil, water, and air resources.'' Each agency has additional
authorities to inventory resource conditions and prepare management
plans to prevent natural resource degradation and to restore degraded
areas. In order to clarify our intent, the final policy has been
amended to include the phrase ``using existing legal authorities'' in
Section II.B.2, which addresses special designations.
Comments: Several respondents commented on the protection of
existing water rights. The agencies adopting this policy acknowledge
the authority granted to Tribes and States regarding water rights.
Response: In order to clarify our intent, the introduction section
of the final policy has been amended to affirm our intent not to affect
water rights with the addition of the following language: ``The policy
applies only to Federal lands and resources and does not affect water
rights laws, procedures, or regulations.'' In the notice of the
proposed policy published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2000
(65 FR 8834), we also stated our intent by publishing the following
statement in the preamble: ``* * * nothing in the proposed policy is
intended to adjudicate, determine, or otherwise
[[Page 62568]]
affect water rights. The proposed policy does not affect currently
applicable laws, procedures, or regulations creating or determining
water rights.''
2. How does the policy affect Tribal rights and interests?
Comments: Several comments concerned tribal rights and interests.
Response: The final policy acknowledges the Federal policy of the
government-to-government relationship between the United States and
Tribes by expressly including Tribes as governmental partners in
meeting the goals and objectives of this unified Federal policy on
watershed management. The policy recognizes Tribal government
authorities under the Clean Water Act and includes Tribes in all of the
collaboration efforts addressed by the policy. The policy also has the
flexibility to take into account indigenous knowledge when developing,
selecting and implementing management actions.
3. What role will States, Tribes, and local governments have in working
with Federal agencies to implement the policy?
Comments: A few respondents suggested we clarify the roles of the
Federal agencies, States, and Tribes.
Response: In the preamble to the proposed policy, we recognized
that Tribes and States have overall responsibility for managing waters
under their jurisdiction. This recognition has been added to the
introduction of the final policy. In addition, Section II.D.2 of the
final policy states that we will develop formal agreements with States,
Tribes, and local governments as appropriate to clarify
responsibilities for watershed management.
Comments: Some respondents questioned the need for additional
watershed assessments on Federally managed lands and requested
clarification on the scope and scale of these assessments.
Response: The purpose of watershed assessment is to gain an
understanding of the physical and biological processes that govern the
flow, quality, and timing of water. It is our intent that watershed
assessments will result in information that will become part of the
basis for identifying management opportunities and priorities and for
developing alternatives to protect or restore watersheds. We have
included an outline in Section II.A.1.a of the final policy for the
development of a consistent watershed assessment procedure. Although
the agencies' field offices will have flexibility on the scale,
watershed assessments generally will be at the 5th level Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) (40,000 to 250,000 acres) or 6th level HUC (10,000 to
40,000 acres).
Comments: A few respondents questioned whether the watershed
assessments on Federally managed lands duplicate actions that the
Tribes and States are required to conduct under the Clean Water Act.
Response: The Federal watershed assessments will supplement the
Tribal and State assessments. In general, the Federal assessments will
be more detailed (for example, we will analyze the cause of watershed
problems and the potential for recovery) and will be at a smaller
scale. We will use the results of these assessments to work with the
Tribes and States in efforts to protect or improve water quality in
watersheds that include Federal lands.
Comments: Several respondents emphasized that Federal watershed
protection and restoration efforts must be coordinated with Tribal,
State, and local efforts.
Response: The policy is intended to provide a framework for
enhanced collaboration among the Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
private landowners, and stakeholders. While the policy applies only to
Federally managed lands, we recognize that collaboration is essential
to successful watershed protection and restoration. The Federal
agencies within a watershed are committed to working together and with
States, Tribes, local governments, interested stakeholders, and private
landowners to assess, prioritize, and focus funding and personnel for
protection and restoration action in priority watersheds. The policy is
broad to allow field level offices the flexibility to consider local
conditions and the good work already underway. Through close
coordination outlined in the policy, we believe work on Federal lands
will complement actions taken by States, Tribes, and local communities.
4. What impacts will this policy have on the multiple uses of Federal
lands?
Comments: Some respondents expressed concern that the policy might
interfere with current multiple use management activities, while other
respondents suggested that the policy be strengthened to help ensure
that Federal land management activities would not further degrade water
quality.
Response: Federal laws governing Federal land management already
strike a balance between local and national interests in meeting
multiple use mandates, preventing natural resource degradation, and
preserving resource viability. This policy is intended to provide a
consistent approach to managing Federal lands and resources in
accordance with applicable laws governing Federal land use management
and water quality.
5. How will the policy be implemented?
Comments: Several respondents commented on the need for specific
implementation information; in particular, when and how the actions are
to be accomplished and how ongoing efforts by Tribes, States, and local
communities will be impacted by the policy.
Response: With the adoption of the final policy, the agencies will
work in close coordination with State, Tribal, and local government
agencies; private landowners; and stakeholders to develop
implementation plans that will incorporate the goals of the policy,
build on current efforts, and will recognize work already being
accomplished by Tribes, States, and local communities.
Comments: A few respondents questioned whether funding to implement
the policy is available.
Response: We recognize that the implementation will vary among the
agencies, based in part on existing budget allocations. We also
anticipate that implementation of this policy will help to encourage
Federal land and resource management agencies to pool funds to focus on
priority efforts. Finally, we recognize that additional funding could
accelerate implementation of this policy.
6. How will the public participate in implementing the policy?
Comments: Several respondents wanted to know how the public would
be involved in policy implementation.
Response: One of the six guiding principles of the final policy
(Section I.A-F) is to work closely with States, Tribes, local
governments, private landowners, and stakeholders to implement this
policy (Section I.D). The policy provides for two types of public
participation: (1) Opportunities to review and comment throughout
Federal planning processes, and (2) Opportunities to assist in on-the-
ground work (Section II.D). In general, the agencies' field offices
will be responsible for working with States, Tribes, local governments,
private landowners, and stakeholders to provide opportunities for
input, at a minimum, in the following areas:
Assessing the effects of our current and past actions on
the condition of watersheds with significant Federal lands and
resources (Section II.A.2.a).
[[Page 62569]]
Identifying specific watersheds with significant Federal
lands and resources as priorities for protection, management, and
improvement (Section II.B.1).
Improving watershed conditions through restoration and
adaptive management (Section II.B.4).
Comments: Two respondents expressed concern that private landowners
were not mentioned until the end of the policy.
Response: We recognize that private landowners play a very
important role in implementing a watershed approach. The term
``stakeholder'' is intended to include private landowners. In addition,
the term ``private landowners'' was added in several sections of the
final policy to clarify the intent of the policy to recognize their
role and include them in many steps to achieve watershed management.
Dated: September 20, 2000.
For the Department of Agriculture.
James R. Lyons,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
Dated: October 2, 2000.
For the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
D. James Baker,
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere.
Dated: September 28, 2000.
For the Department of Defense.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Dated: September 22, 2000.
For the Department of Energy.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health. 9
Dated: September 7, 2000.
For the Department of the Interior.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management.
August 29, 2999.
For the Environmental Protection Agency.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
Dated: September 1, 2000.
For the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Ruben O. Hernandez,
Vice President, Resource Stewardship.
Dated: September 14, 2000.
For the Army Corps of Engineers.
Joseph W. Westphal,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and
Resource Management
Introduction
Federal agencies manage large amounts of public lands throughout
the country. To protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems on these
public lands, Federal agencies have developed the following policy to
reduce water pollution from Federal activities and foster a unified,
watershed-based approach to Federal land and resource management. This
policy is intended to accelerate Federal progress towards achieving the
goals of the Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). This policy applies only to Federal
lands and resources and does not affect water rights laws, procedures,
or regulations. This policy does not supersede or otherwise affect
existing State or Tribal authority under the Clean Water Act. The
Federal agencies also acknowledge that, in international waters, the
watershed approach is subject to the international treaties and
agreements affecting those waters.
I. Policy Goals
We, the Federal agencies who have signed this policy, are committed
to managing the Federal lands, resources, and facilities in our care as
models of good stewardship and effective watershed management.
We recognize that State, Tribal, and local programs for watershed
protection and improvement are currently underway and producing
positive results. We also recognize the success of locally led,
voluntary, watershed groups in planning and implementing water quality
improvement actions. This policy seeks to build upon those existing
efforts and expand cooperation among Federal, Tribal, State and local
partners. This policy will enhance these programs by improving
consistency among Federal agency watershed protection programs. We
acknowledge that those Federal agencies without established programs
will face an additional challenge to implement this policy and that the
pace and level of implementation will vary by agency.
The following policy has two goals: (1) Use a watershed approach to
prevent and reduce pollution of surface and ground waters resulting
from Federal land and resource management activities; and (2)
Accomplish this in a unified and cost-effective manner.
To develop a unified Federal policy that meets these two goals, we
incorporated the following guiding principles:
A. Use a consistent and scientific approach to manage Federal lands
and resources and to assess, protect, and restore watersheds.
B. Identify specific watersheds in which to focus our funding and
personnel and accelerate improvements in water quality, aquatic
habitat, and watershed conditions.
C. Use the results of watershed assessments to guide planning and
management activities in accordance with applicable authorities and
procedures.
D. Work closely with States, Tribes, local governments, private
landowners, and stakeholders to implement this policy.
E. Meet our Clean Water Act responsibility to comply with
applicable Federal, State, Tribal, interstate, and local water quality
requirements to the same extent as non-governmental entities.
F. Take steps to help ensure that Federal land and resource
management actions are consistent with applicable Federal, State,
Tribal, and local government water quality management programs.
II. Agency Objectives
To accomplish these policy goals, we propose to use existing
funding, personnel, and authorities to pursue the following objectives.
All agencies will implement this policy as individual agency laws,
missions, funding, and fiscal and budgetary authorities permit.
A. We will develop a science-based approach to watershed assessment
for Federal lands. Watershed assessment information will become part of
the basis for identifying management opportunities and priorities and
for developing alternatives to protect or restore watersheds.
1. We will develop consistent procedures for delineating,
assessing, and classifying watersheds.
a. We will work together to define and implement interagency
guidelines for the delineation of watershed (5th level) hydrologic unit
code boundaries.
b. Building on current efforts, we will develop and test watershed
assessment procedures in watersheds that have been delineated using the
interagency guidelines. The watershed assessment procedures will
outline a process to:
(1) Focus on the analysis of factors that most directly influence
changes in the condition of the specific watershed of interest (for
example, meteorology, surface and ground water, soils, geology,
[[Page 62570]]
vegetation, topography, channel geometry factors, and natural and human
disturbances).
(2) Determine existing conditions and reference conditions.
(3) Identify the significance and the causes of the differences
between existing and reference conditions for the watershed and the
potential for recovery.
c. We will develop a framework for consistent classification of the
condition of watersheds with significant Federal lands and resources.
The framework will use the results of the watershed assessments.
2. We will conduct assessments of watersheds that have significant
Federal lands and resources.
a. We will assess the affects of our current and past actions on
the condition of watersheds with significant Federal lands and
resources in cooperation with States, Tribes, local governments,
private landowners, and interested stakeholders, using the procedures
developed in Section II.A.1.b and recognizing current agreements.
b. We will develop schedules for assessments and identify necessary
funding and personnel.
c. We will conduct assessments in priority watersheds on a 10-year
cycle, or on a periodic cycle that better demonstrates changes in a
particular watershed's condition over time. We will conduct assessments
in other watersheds on a planned, periodic cycle.
d. We will use watershed assessments, where available, to improve
management of Federal lands and resources. We will provide the results
of assessments to States, Tribes, and local governments and use these
assessments to assist States, Tribes, and local governments in
protecting and restoring watersheds designated as priorities by State
and Tribal Unified Watershed Assessments, Source Water Assessments or
other assessments.
B. We will use a watershed management approach when protecting and
restoring watersheds.
1. We will work collaboratively to identify priority watersheds.
a. We will work with States, Tribes, local governments, private
landowners, and interested stakeholders to identify specific watersheds
with significant Federal lands and resources as priorities for
protection, management, and improvement.
b. We will identify priority watersheds based on factors that
include:
(1) The percentage of the watershed under Federal management;
(2) Issues the Federal agencies identify, including possible
adverse effects on surface and ground water quality;
(3) Magnitude of water quality impairment, impacts to aquatic
resources, and/or changes to flow regime;
(4) State and Tribal Unified Watershed Assessments and Source Water
Assessments;
(5) Vulnerability of the watershed to degradation; and
(6) Substantive public interest.
2. Using existing legal authorities, we will develop a process and
guidelines for identifying and designating waters or watersheds on
Federal lands that may have significant human health, public use, or
aquatic ecosystem values and a need for special protection.
3. We will implement pollution prevention and controls, consistent
with applicable legal authorities.
a. We will address nonpoint and point source pollution from Federal
land management activities, protect or improve water quality, and meet
applicable State and Tribal water quality requirements under the Clean
Water Act.
b. We will work with States, Tribes, and local governments to
address nonpoint sources of pollution by:
(1) Identifying best management practices (BMPs) and management
strategies that meet applicable Federal, State, and Tribal water
quality requirements;
(2) Adjusting BMPs when monitoring reveals that they do not
adequately protect water quality; and
(3) Mitigating impacts when implementation of BMPs results in
unexpected adverse water quality impacts.
4. We will improve watershed conditions through restoration and
adaptive management. We will strive to work with States, Tribes, local
governments, private landowners, and interested stakeholders to improve
the condition of priority watersheds. Changes in management strategies
and restoration efforts will focus on watersheds where Federal land and
resource management activities can meaningfully influence surface and
ground water quality and aquatic resources.
5. We will base watershed management on scientific principles and
methods. We will use scientific information from research and
management experience in designing and implementing watershed planning
and management programs, and setting management goals (e.g., desired
conditions). To expand current knowledge, we will collaborate to
identify research needs and contribute to or sponsor research, as
appropriate.
6. We will identify and incorporate watershed management goals into
our planning, programs, and actions. We will periodically review and
amend, as appropriate, policies and management plans for Federal lands
and resources to meet goals for watershed protection and improvement.
We will incorporate adaptive management principles into our programs.
Our watershed goals will seek to minimize adverse water quality impacts
due to ongoing and future management programs, minimize impairment of
current or future uses, and restore watersheds where applicable State
and Tribal water quality requirements under the Clean Water Act are not
achieved due to activities occurring on Federal lands.
7. We will help Tribes and States develop science-based total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs). We will assist and support State and
Tribal efforts to develop and implement TMDLs in watersheds with
significant Federal land and resource management activities. We will
provide technical assistance, tools, and expertise. We will use TMDL
results in watershed planning and subsequent resource management
activities to meet applicable State and Tribal water quality
requirements under the Clean Water Act.
C. We will improve our compliance with water quality requirements
under the Clean Water Act.
1. We will review agency policies to improve compliance with water
quality requirements. We will identify and review our rules, policies,
and procedures that affect water quality or watershed conditions for
compliance under the Clean Water Act with applicable Federal, State,
Tribal, interstate, and local requirements for preventing and
controlling water pollution.
2. We will integrate water quality standards and watershed
management goals. We will work collaboratively to clarify relationships
under the Clean Water Act among BMPs, TMDLs, and State and Tribal water
quality standards to achieve the following goals:
a. Better coordination of watershed goals and objectives;
b. Better sharing of scientific and technical data, equipment, and
expertise;
c. Better support to the State/Tribal triennial reviews so that
they reflect the importance of natural background loadings;
d. Better implementation mechanisms for meeting standards under the
Clean
[[Page 62571]]
Water Act, including practical interim measures where standards are not
immediately achievable; and
e. Consistent treatment of Federal and non-Federal entities.
3. We will review our policies and processes that may affect land
and water uses and water quality. In cooperation with Tribes and
States, we will review our policies and processes for land and water
uses that may affect water quality and watershed condition. We will
consider revising these policies or processes, as appropriate, to
ensure that they address watershed protection, improvement, monitoring,
and water quality compliance.
D. We will enhance collaboration.
1. We will improve cooperation among Federal agencies. We will
address water quality and aquatic ecosystem issues for watersheds at
the national, regional, and field levels.
2. We will improve cooperation with States, Tribes, and local
governments. We will develop formal agreements as appropriate with
States, Tribes, and local governments to clarify responsibilities for
watershed management. These agreements will seek a watershed-based
approach for preventing or reducing pollution from point and nonpoint
sources.
3. We will expand opportunities for participation by interested
stakeholders. We will seek participation by interested stakeholders in
watershed planning and management decisions using available mechanisms
in existing planning processes. We will:
a. Identify specific opportunities for review and comment by
interested stakeholders during Federal land and watershed planning
efforts;
b. Provide opportunities for interested stakeholders to participate
in monitoring and assessing watershed conditions and in implementing
watershed restoration projects; and
c. Seek early feedback on key decisions affecting watershed
management and carefully consider this feedback in agency decision-
making.
4. We will expand opportunities for dialogue with private
landowners. In priority watersheds with a mix of Federal and private
lands, we will work with private sector landholders to involve them in
the watershed management process. We will work closely to help ensure
that Federally funded projects involving private cost-share partners
fully consider watershed management objectives for both public and
private lands.
5. We will coordinate monitoring. We will develop and implement a
coordinated monitoring and evaluation approach and will monitor water
quality trends and our management activities to determine whether
progress is being made in protecting and improving water quality.
6. We will share training, information, and technical expertise. To
promote collaboration and consistency in watershed management
practices, we will continue, expand, develop, implement, and make
available joint training programs; share information and technical
expertise; transfer technologies for watershed management; and develop
a consistent way to organize and present information and make it more
accessible.
This policy does not create any right or benefit, or trust
responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party
against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its
officers or employees, or any other person. This policy does not alter
or amend any requirement under statute, regulation, or Executive Order.
Dated: September 20, 2000.
For the Department of Agriculture.
James R. Lyons,
Natural Resources and Environment.
Dated: October 2, 2000.
For the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
D. James Baker,
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere.
Dated: September 28, 2000.
For the Department of Defense.
Sherri W. Goodman,
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security).
Dated: September 22, 2000.
For the Department of Energy.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
Dated: September 7, 2000.
For the Department of the Interior.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management.
Dated: August 29, 2000.
For the Environmental Protection Agency.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
Dated: September 1, 2000.
For the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Ruben O. Hernandez,
Vice President, Resource Stewardship.
Dated: September 14, 2000.
For the Army Corps of Engineers.
Joseph W. Westphal,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
Glossary of Terms
These definitions are intended only to help you understand the
policy better, and do not change the meanings of terms defined by
law or regulation. If we define a term in the policy that is not
defined elsewhere by law or regulation, you should not consider any
such definition to have the effect of a law or regulation. Also, if
we use a definition in this policy that is subsequently found to
conflict with current laws or regulations, the current laws or
regulations would apply. For example, ``best management practices''
and ``total maximum daily load'' are defined in the Environmental
Protection Agency's regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 and 40 CFR 130.2(i),
respectively.
Adaptive management: A type of natural resource management in
which decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-based
process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and
evaluating applied strategies, and incorporating new knowledge into
management approaches that are based on scientific findings and the
needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy,
strategies, and practices.
Best management practices (BMPs): Methods, measures, or
practices to prevent or reduce water pollution, including, but not
limited to:
1. Structural and nonstructural controls,
2. Operation and maintenance procedures, and
3. Other requirements and scheduling and distribution of
activities.
Usually BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a
single practice. BMPs are selected on the basis of site-specific
conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political,
social, economic, and technical feasibility.
Consistent: Conforming to the same principles or course of
action.
Hydrologic unit: A national standard system of watersheds that
are classified into four types of units: regions, sub-regions,
accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic units are
arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units or
sub-basin) to the largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit is
identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two
to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the
hydrologic unit system. A standardized fifth-level of classification
or 10-digit hydrologic unit (watershed) has recently been developed.
Locally, a non-standard sixth-level sub-watershed also may have been
developed.
Priority watersheds: Watersheds selected for the focusing of
Federal funds and personnel for the purpose of accelerating
improvements in water quality and watershed condition.
Reference condition: The range of factors (for example,
meteorology, surface and ground water, soils, geology, vegetation,
topography, channel geometry factors, and natural and human
disturbances) that is representative of the watershed's recent
historical values prior to significant alteration of its
environment. The reference could represent conditions found in a
relic site or a site having had little significant disturbance. The
reference condition does not necessarily represent conditions that
are attainable. The purpose of references is to establish a basis
for comparing what
[[Page 62572]]
currently exists to what has existed in recent history. References
can be obtained through actual data, such as paired watersheds or
well-managed watersheds, or through extrapolated techniques, such as
modeling.
Resources: The biological and physical characteristics for which
Federal agencies have management and stewardship responsibility; for
example, air, soil, water, fish, wildlife, vegetation, and minerals.
Total maximum daily load: An estimate of the total quantity of
pollutants (from all sources--point, nonpoint, and natural) that may
be allowed into waters without exceeding applicable water quality
standards.
Unified Watershed Assessment: The Clean Water Action Plan asked
Tribes and States to assess their watersheds and identify all
watersheds as being in one of four categories:
1. Not meeting, or facing an imminent threat of not meeting,
clean water or other natural resource goals;
2. Meeting goals but needing action to sustain water quality;
3. Having pristine/sensitive aquatic system conditions on
Federal, State, or Tribal lands; or
4. Needing more information to assess watershed condition.
Source Water Assessment: A process, required by the Safe
Drinking Water Act, whereby the State or designated Tribe or agency,
identifies the areas that provide surface and ground water to public
drinking water systems; inventories existing contaminants; and
determines vulnerability of the system to contamination.
Watershed: A geographic area of land, water, and biota within
the confines of a drainage divide. The total area above a given
point of a water body that contributes flow to that point.
Watershed approach: A framework to guide watershed management
that: (1) uses watershed assessments to determine existing and
reference conditions; (2) incorporates assessment results into
resource management planning; and (3) fosters collaboration with all
landowners in the watershed. The framework considers both ground and
surface water flow within a hydrologically defined geographical
area.
Watershed assessment: An analysis and interpretation of the
physical and landscape characteristics of a watershed using
scientific principles to describe watershed conditions as they
affect water quality and aquatic resources. Initial watershed
assessments will be conducted using existing data, where available.
Data gaps may suggest the collection of additional data.
Watershed condition: The state of the watershed based on
physical and biogeochemical characteristics and processes (e.g.,
hydrologic, geomorphic, landscape, topographic, vegetative cover,
and aquatic habitat), water flow characteristics and processes
(e.g., volume and timing), and water quality characteristics and
processes (e.g., chemical, physical, and biological), as it affects
water quality and water resources.
[FR Doc. 00-26566 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P