62566 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Notices

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Notices 62567

mandates regarding multiple use,

sustained yield and planning

procedures found in the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C.

§ 1701 et seq. (FLPMA), the Multiple

Use and Sustained Yield Act, 16 U.S.C.

§ 531 et seq. (MUSYA), and the National

Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C.

§ 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 decisionmaking 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

62568 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Notices

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).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Notices 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,

62570 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Notices

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Notices 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 costshare 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 nonstandard 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

62572 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Notices

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