[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24173-24177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10967]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

[RR83530000, 190R5065C6, RX.59389832.1009676]


National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures for the 
Bureau of Reclamation (516 DM 14)

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of final National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 
Procedures.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the addition of a new categorical 
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for the 
Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior's Departmental 
Manual (DM) at 516 DM 14. The new categorical exclusion is for the 
transfer of title of certain projects and facilities from the Bureau of 
Reclamation to a qualifying non-Federal project entity. The new 
categorical exclusion allows for more efficient review of appropriate 
title transfer actions.

DATES: The categorical exclusion is effective May 24, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The new categorical exclusion can be found at the web 
address https://www.doi.gov/elips/browse, at Series 31, Part 516, 
chapter 14.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Cunningham, 
Environmental Compliance Division, Bureau of Reclamation, (303) 445-
2875; or via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was established in 1902. 
Its original mission was one of civil works construction to develop the 
water resources of the arid Western United States to promote the 
settlement and economic development of that region. Results are well 
known in the hundreds of projects that were developed to store and 
deliver water. That substantial infrastructure contributed to making 
Reclamation the largest wholesale supplier of water and the second 
largest producer of hydropower in the United States.

Title Transfer

    Title transfer is a voluntary conveyance of ownership (title) for 
water projects, portions of projects, or project facilities such as 
dams, canals, laterals, and other water-related infrastructure and 
facilities to beneficiaries of those facilities. Title transfer divests 
Reclamation of responsibility for the operation, maintenance, 
management, regulation of, and liability for the project, lands, and 
facilities to be transferred. It provides the non-Federal entity with 
greater autonomy and flexibility to manage the facilities to meet its 
needs, in compliance with Federal, state, and local laws and in 
conformance with contractual obligations. Title-transferred assets 
would no longer be Federal assets.
    Under the Reclamation Extension Act of 1914, the responsibility for 
operations, maintenance, and replacement of facilities may be, and 
often is, contractually transferred to the water users. Title or 
ownership of facilities and projects, however, must remain with the 
United States until Congress specifically authorizes their transfer. 
Since 1995, Reclamation has been working closely with qualifying 
entities of specific projects and has conveyed over 30 projects and/or 
project-related facilities, including dams, reservoirs, canals, 
laterals, buildings, project lands, and easements. Congressional 
authorizations for title transfer historically have occurred on a 
project-by-project basis. While Congress may authorize future title 
transfers by this same approach, recent legislation was passed to 
facilitate transfer of title for Reclamation project facilities. On 
March 12, 2019, the President signed into law the John D. Dingell, Jr. 
Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, Public Law 116-9. Title 
VIII, Subtitle A of Public Law 116-9, Reclamation Title Transfer (Title 
VIII), authorizes Reclamation to transfer title of certain project 
facilities without additional Congressional action if they meet 
eligibility criteria, under procedures established by Reclamation.
    Transfer of title is a Federal action under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires that when a major 
Federal action would have significant impacts on the quality of the 
human environment, a statement be prepared to describe the impacts and 
effects on the human environment associated with the Federal action. 
When a Federal agency determines that a certain category of actions 
will not normally have an individually or cumulatively significant 
effect on the human environment and for which neither an environmental 
assessment (EA) nor an environmental impact statement (EIS) is 
required, that category of actions may be excluded from further NEPA 
review (40 CFR 1508.4). When appropriately established and applied, 
categorical exclusions (CEs) serve a beneficial purpose. They allow 
Federal agencies to expedite the environmental review process for 
proposals that typically do not require more resource-intensive EAs or 
EISs (Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 2010).

Comments on the Proposal

    Reclamation solicited comments from the public on establishing a 
new CE through a 30-day public comment period, announced in the Federal 
Register on October 17, 2018 (83 FR 52503). All comments received, to 
date, have been considered.
    Reclamation received 16 letters from state governments, water and 
irrigation districts, water user organizations, a national 
environmental professionals association and a consortium of 
conservation interests. Individual comments included several that 
restated the objectives, limitations, and rationale for the CE, several 
that expressed general or detailed support or opposition for the CE, 
and several that expressed general or detailed support or opposition to 
transferring title.
    Reclamation appreciates the interest and participation of all 
respondents. Reclamation has noted the comments, which provided general 
support and general opposition. For comments providing additional 
detail, questions, and suggestions, Reclamation, where appropriate, 
grouped the common comments and responds to the comments as follows:
    Comment 1--Adequacy of analysis of title transfers: Commenters were 
concerned that a CE would preclude NEPA analysis or would not provide 
enough or sufficiently rigorous analysis for title transfer actions, 
including indirect effects, reasonable alternatives to be evaluated, 
and/or cumulative effects.
    Response 1--CEs are not exemptions or waivers from NEPA. Rather, 
they are a type of NEPA review intended to accomplish the purposes of 
NEPA, efficiently and effectively. A CE is a tool to complete the NEPA 
environmental review process for proposals that normally would not 
require more resource-intensive EAs or EISs. Reclamation intends to 
meet

[[Page 24174]]

requirements under NEPA and other laws and regulations, ensuring the 
appropriate level of analysis and public involvement, consistent with 
regulations and policies. Any proposals not meeting the CE 
Qualification Factors (see CE Qualification Factors section in this 
notice) or triggering the Department of the Interior (Department) 
extraordinary circumstances, listed at 43 CFR 46.215, would need 
additional review.
    Comment 2--Adequacy of public and agency involvement: Commenters 
were concerned that a CE would reduce the ability of the public and 
agencies to receive notification of the CE and provide public input. 
One commenter requested notification for any CE Reclamation considers 
across the Missouri River basin.
    Response 2--The CEQ and the Department's NEPA implementing 
regulations do not require public notice of an agency's use of a CE. 
The eligibility criterion for transferring title, as described in CE 
Qualification Factor #8 does, however, establish Reclamation's 
commitment that affected state, local, and tribal governments, 
appropriate Federal agencies, and the public be notified, regarding 
proposed title transfers, and invited to participate in an open manner.
    Comment 3--Title transfers should be subject to Congressional 
approval to protect the public interest: The commenter expressed 
concern that divestiture of any of Reclamation's projects or facilities 
without public or Congressional approval should be subject to specific 
limitations in order to protect the public interest.
    Response 3--Reclamation is authorized to transfer title only as a 
result of Congressional action, including Public Law 116-9, Title VIII.
    Comment 4--Eligibility factors for a proposed title transfer to 
qualify for use of the CE: The commenter recommends Reclamation's 
Framework for the Transfer of Title (September 2004) and Reclamation's 
policy clearly exclude the following types of projects and facilities, 
in part or in whole, from use of the CE:

 Large multi-purpose projects
 hydropower projects
 projects that lack consensus among project beneficiaries
 projects with a history of litigation or legal concerns
 inter-basin transfer projects or components of an inter-basin 
transfer project

    Response 4--CEQ guidance advises that agencies develop CEs by 
setting limits on potential project actions to ensure they will not 
result in significant environmental impacts. Reclamation's new CE is 
intended to appropriately define and limit use to only those title 
transfer actions that meet CE Qualification Factors, do not involve 
extraordinary circumstances, and will not result in individually or 
cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Reclamation considered 
other factors for its CE, including some indicated by the commenter. 
Reclamation has determined, however, that the exclusions suggested by 
this comment are substantially satisfied in other CE Qualification 
Factors and analysis of extraordinary circumstances. For example, the 
transferee would be required to ensure there are no competing demands 
for the use of transferred facilities.
    Comment 5--Scope of proposed title transfers: The commenter 
suggests that Reclamation should not divest a portion of a project that 
would not have qualified for a CE if considered in whole. The commenter 
expressed a particular concern with piecemeal divestitures involving 
the Garrison Diversion Unit.
    Response 5--The terms ``piecemealing'' or ``improper segmentation'' 
are sometimes used to describe actions that are divided into smaller 
parts with less significant individual effects, in order to avoid 
preparing an EIS. Section 1508.25 of CEQ's NEPA implementing 
regulations requires that ``connected actions'' and ``cumulative 
actions'' be analyzed in the same impact statement. Reclamation will 
consider extraordinary circumstances to ensure actions under any CE are 
not part of a larger action.
    Reclamation would not be prohibited from transferring title to a 
portion of a larger project where Congress authorizes it. In such 
cases, Reclamation would define the scope of actions to ensure the 
appropriate analysis and documentation. For projects that would 
facilitate future actions or are an initial action in a known series of 
actions, an EA or EIS may be required.
    Comment 6--Extraordinary circumstances: The commenter suggests that 
Reclamation should not categorically exclude from NEPA analysis any 
projects for which extraordinary circumstances exist.
    Response 6--Reclamation confirms that it would not use a CE for 
projects for which extraordinary circumstances exist. Reclamation 
prepares a CE Checklist to use any CE in 516 DM 14.5. The checklist 
provides a methodical approach to defining a proposed action according 
to its list of CEs and ensuring that the proposed action is analyzed 
against each extraordinary circumstance.
    Comment 7--Suggested language to clarify CE Qualification Factors: 
Three commenters suggested amending the CE Qualification Factors to 
recognize coordination of operations agreements with the following 
edits (added language is indicated in italics below):
    #3. The potential transferee must ensure that there are no 
competing demands for use of the transferred facilities, with the 
exception of those demands accommodated by existing contractual 
arrangements.
    #4. The potential transferee must ensure that the facilities 
proposed for transfer are not hydrologically integrated with other 
facilities thereby impacting other contractors, stakeholders or 
activities, with the exception of those impacts accommodated by 
existing contractual arrangements.
    Response 7--Reclamation accepts the rationale and suggested 
language for CE Qualification Factors #3 and #4. In addition, to ensure 
that potential transferees coordinate with other parties to such 
existing contractual arrangements, Reclamation revises CE Qualification 
Factor #6 as follows:
    #6. The potential transferee must ensure that issues involving 
existing contracts and agreements, interstate compacts, and agreements 
are resolved, and treaty and international agreement obligations are 
fulfilled prior to transfer.
    Finally, Reclamation revises the CE language itself to be 
consistent with the above revisions, and other clarifications with 
regard to the Secretary's responsibilities, as follows: ``Transfer from 
Federal ownership of facilities and/or interest in lands to a 
qualifying entity where there are no competing demands for use of the 
facilities; where the facilities are not hydrologically integrated; 
where, at the time of transfer, there would be no planned change in 
land or water use, or in operation, or maintenance of the facilities; 
and where the transfer would be consistent with the Secretary's 
responsibilities, including but not limited to existing contracts or 
agreements, the protection of land resources and water rights held in 
trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and Indian individuals, 
and ensuring compliance with international treaties and interstate 
compacts.''
    Comment 8--Clarification on ``severing ties'': Commenters referred 
to language provided in Reclamation's Federal Register notice proposing 
the title transfer CE, introductory paragraphs, where we state, ``The 
transfer of title of a project or set of facilities will, in effect, 
sever

[[Page 24175]]

Reclamation's ties with that project or those conveyed facilities.'' 
The comments noted that ``even if title is transferred, ties with 
Reclamation are not severed. For example, the relationship with a water 
district would remain.''
    Response 8--Because Reclamation would no longer own, operate, or 
otherwise manage transferred assets, transfers will normally sever its 
contractual relationships with affected water districts.
    Comment 9--Project power: Multiple commenters discussed the need 
for continued access to project power for title transfer projects.
    Response 9--The comment appears to be more related to the terms and 
conditions of title transfers rather than our review to establish a new 
CE. Reclamation would implement the terms and conditions of any 
Congressional action authorizing a title transfer, including any 
Congressional directive related to project use power.
    Comment 10--Public interest and public trust: Multiple commenters 
questioned how operations of the transferred facilities would be 
carried out in such a manner that the public interest is maintained.
    Response 10--Similar to the comment above, it appears to be more 
related to the terms and conditions of title transfers rather than our 
review to establish a CE. Reclamation would implement the terms and 
conditions of any Congressional action authorizing a title transfer. 
Once title is transferred, Reclamation has no authority over a non-
Federal entity.
    Comment 11--Indian trust resources: The commenter questioned how 
Indian trust resources would be managed and whether they would be 
maintained in a manner similar to that of the Federal Government.
    Response 11--The United States cannot transfer its Indian trust 
responsibilities. Therefore, eligibility to use this CE would only 
involve proposals for which there are no Indian trust responsibilities. 
Language in Eligibility criterion #5 is amended to clarify this point, 
as follows: The transfer would not include lands or facilities 
involving Indian trust responsibilities.
    Comment 12--Delegation to non-Federal entities: Multiple commenters 
questioned if Reclamation will delegate Federal authority to ensure 
proper management and protection of public trust resources.
    Response 12--In general, Reclamation may not delegate its 
authorities to a non-Federal entity under title transfer. Once title is 
transferred, Reclamation has no authority over the facility or the 
owner. Under CE Qualification Factors, title transferees are required 
to demonstrate ability to properly manage the subject lands and 
facilities, which would be reflected in title transfer conditions and 
agreements.
    Comment 13--Large and complex projects: The commenter questioned 
whether Reclamation will apply this CE to large and complex projects, 
such as the Federal Columbia River Power System.
    Response 13--Reclamation will carefully apply this CE to only those 
proposed projects meeting the CE Qualification Factors and free of 
extraordinary circumstances. Each proposed title transfer will be 
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment 14--Additional considerations to determine eligibility to 
use a CE: The commenter expressed concern about several topics (below) 
and questioned how project requirements would be met:

 Illegal water deliveries, over-appropriation (e.g., the 
Umatilla Basin controversy)
 Maintaining instream flow
 Ensuring tribal trust
 Re-allocation of water
 Discretion in mitigation
 Addressing damages to subject facilities caused by unforeseen 
circumstances (forces of nature, time)
 Addressing damages downstream caused by subject facilities 
(dam failure, slope failure, flooding)
 Congressional approval (all transfers require Congressional 
approval)

    Response 14--Reclamation's proposed new CE is intended to 
appropriately define and limit use to only those title transfer actions 
that meet CE Qualification Factors, do not involve extraordinary 
circumstances, and will not result in individually or cumulatively 
significant environmental impacts. Reclamation considered other factors 
for its proposed CE, including some indicated by the commenter. For 
example, for a proposal to qualify for use of the CE, the transferee 
would be required to ensure there are no competing demands for the use 
of transferred facilities and the transfer would not include lands or 
facilities involving Native American trust responsibilities. 
Reclamation has determined that the commenter's suggestions are 
substantially satisfied by current CE Qualification Factors and 
analysis against extraordinary circumstances. Reclamation will consider 
all relevant factors when determining both the eligibility of the CE 
and the potential for extraordinary circumstances on each proposed 
title transfer.
    Comment 15--Frequency of title transfer actions: The commenter 
expressed concern that establishing a CE would result in more frequent 
implementation of these types of actions and cumulative impacts of 
wide-scale disposal of Federal lands.
    Response 15--Reclamation anticipates that establishing a CE would 
not change the overall number of potential, eligible title transfer 
proposals. Of those, only title transfers meeting CE Qualification 
Factors would be eligible to use the CE. Reclamation does not 
anticipate that establishing this CE would result in a wide-scale 
disposal of Federal lands.
    Comment 16--CE development process: The commenter requests that 
Reclamation reconsider drafting of its proposal to establish a CE and 
recommends issuing a revised notice.
    Response 16--Reclamation appreciates the commenter's suggestions 
and has revised the CE definition and CE Qualification Factors in 
response to comments to correct and clarify language. These changes 
will help ensure use of the CE only for title transfers that would not 
result in significant impacts. Reclamation is establishing this title 
transfer CE consistent with CEQ and Department regulations and 
guidance.
    Comment 17--Change in use: The commenter expressed concern that the 
``. . . language in the CE, `at the time of transfer,' leaves open the 
possibility that these same facilities may undergo such changes in the 
future without the procedures and protections to the environment that 
normally would be required of Reclamation under NEPA.''
    Response 17--The basis of this CE is that it applies only in 
instances where, at the time of transfer, such changes are not 
contemplated; and if they are, the use of this CE would not be allowed. 
This determination relies on the stated intentions of the potential 
transferee and the assumption that parties enter the agreement in good 
faith. Reclamation understands there is a chance a potential transferee 
could falsely state its intention or change its plan over time. These 
circumstances would be no better served by preparing an EA or an EIS. 
Reclamation believes that the potential for this scenario is mitigated 
by the underlying purposes of the project, in which a potential 
transferee is already invested and the interest a potential transferee 
would have in protecting its business integrity with Reclamation and 
others.
    Comment 18--Undermines NEPA: The commenter is concerned that ``. . 
.

[[Page 24176]]

the desire for a speedy environmental review has undermined the very 
existence of NEPA.''
    Response 18--As provided in CEQ regulations and guidance, 
establishing a CE and appropriately using CEs are consistent with the 
policy and objectives of NEPA.

Text of Addition to 516 DM 14, Section 14.5 Categorical Exclusions

F. Title Transfer Activities

    (1) ``Transfer from Federal ownership of facilities and/or interest 
in lands to a qualifying entity where there are no competing demands 
for use of the facilities; where the facilities are not hydrologically 
integrated; where, at the time of transfer, there would be no planned 
change in land or water use, or in operation, or maintenance of the 
facilities; and where the transfer would be consistent with the 
Secretary's responsibilities, including but not limited to existing 
contracts or agreements, the protection of land resources and water 
rights held in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and Indian 
individuals, and ensuring compliance with international treaties and 
interstate compacts.''

CE Qualification Factors

    The CE is limited to the transfer of projects and/or project 
facilities from Federal ownership to a qualifying entity, which means 
an agency of State or local government or Indian tribe, a municipal 
corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or other entity such as a 
water district that, as determined by the Secretary, has the capacity 
to continue to manage the conveyed property for the same purposes for 
which the property has been managed under Reclamation law. Accordingly, 
projects involving the following considerations (CE Qualification 
Factors) of a qualifying non-Federal entity would generally be eligible 
to be considered for the title transfer CE:
    1. The potential transferee must demonstrate the technical 
capability to maintain and operate the facilities and lands on a 
permanent basis and an ability to meet financial obligations associated 
with the transferred assets.
    2. The potential transferee must affirm that it has no plans to 
change the maintenance, operations, or use of the lands and water 
associated with the transferred facilities.
    3. The potential transferee must ensure that there are no competing 
demands for use of the transferred facilities, with the exception of 
those demands accommodated by existing contractual arrangements.
    4. The potential transferee must ensure that the facilities 
proposed for transfer are not hydrologically integrated with other 
facilities, thereby impacting other contractors, stakeholders or 
activities, with the exception of those impacts accommodated by 
existing contractual arrangements.
    5. The transfer would not include lands or facilities involving 
Indian trust responsibilities.
    6. The potential transferee must ensure that issues involving 
existing contracts and agreements, and interstate compacts and 
agreements, are resolved, and treaty and international agreement 
obligations are fulfilled prior to transfer.
    7. The potential transferee must assume responsibility for all 
commitments and agreements into the future.
    8. Potentially affected state, local, and tribal governments, 
appropriate Federal agencies, and the public will be notified of the 
initiation of discussion to transfer title and will have: (a) The 
opportunity to comment and suggest options for remedying any problems; 
and (b) full access to relevant information, including proposals, 
analyses, and reports related to the proposed transfer. The title 
transfer process will be carried out in an open and public manner. If a 
project or facility is not eligible for transfer under Public Law 116-
9, Title VIII, the transfer proponent may seek legislation to authorize 
the negotiated terms of the transfer of each project or facility.
    Eligibility for this CE would be determined by Reclamation, based 
on the results of on-site inspections, surveys, and other methods of 
evaluation and documentation prepared by Reclamation to determine the 
presence or absence of the exceptions. To determine that a proposed 
title transfer fits within the CE, Reclamation would review the 
proposal to determine that all the following apply:
    1. The Department's extraordinary circumstances would not be 
triggered by the title transfer action.
    2. The title transfer action would not change:
    a. Operation and maintenance of the facilities or lands 
transferred;
    b. land or water use.
    3. The title transfer action would not involve any unresolved issue 
associated with compliance with interstate compacts and agreements; 
meeting the Secretary's Indian trust responsibilities; and fulfilling 
treaty and international agreement obligations.
    Even for a title transfer action that meets these criteria, 
Reclamation may, at its sole discretion, decide to prepare an EA or an 
EIS instead of applying the CE.

Public Law 116-9, Title VIII, Subtitle A, Reclamation Title Transfer

    Title VIII facilitates the transfer of title to certain Reclamation 
project facilities. Reclamation's proposal to establish a new CE for 
title transfer is separate and independent from implementation of Title 
VIII. Reclamation anticipates that the applicability of the new CE to 
proposed projects qualifying for title transfer under Title VIII would 
be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Likewise, proposed projects that 
qualify for the new CE may not qualify for inclusion under Title VIII. 
We note, however, that both Title VIII and Reclamation's draft language 
from its Federal Register Notice on October 17, 2018 (83 FR 52503) for 
the CE referenced ``eligibility criteria.'' Given that the two lists' 
specific eligibility criteria differ, Reclamation will use the term 
``CE Qualification Factors'' for the CE to minimize confusion with the 
law. In addition, Reclamation has modified CE Qualification Factor #8 
to account for title transfer proposals that may already be authorized 
under Title VIII, as well as those not yet authorized.

Categorical Exclusion

    The Department and Reclamation find that the category of actions 
described in the CE (below), limited by the CE Qualification Factors, 
does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the 
human environment. This finding is based on analysis of Reclamation's 
proposal to establish this CE, including analysis of Reclamation's 
title transfer actions. To date, Reclamation has prepared EAs and made 
findings of no significant impact (FONSI) on eight projects that were 
limited in scope, consistent with the CE Qualification Factors. The EA 
and FONSI documentation for these projects is available at 
www.usbr.gov. Reclamation has prepared two EISs on title transfer 
proposals and two EAs for projects that involved more complex actions 
than those that would meet the CE Qualification Factors. In addition, 
Reclamation has prepared 12 EAs and FONSIs on title transfer proposals 
for which mitigation was applied to reduce impacts to less than 
significant. Several of these proposals involved issues of concern 
including sites of interest to tribal communities and adverse effects 
to historic properties. The full complement of these EAs, FONSIs, EISs, 
and Reclamation's knowledge and experience contribute to the body of 
work Reclamation has used to analyze its title transfer actions and 
validate its

[[Page 24177]]

definition of projects for which the CE would be used.
    The CEQ has reviewed the comments received and Reclamation's 
responses to those comments and has approved the CE. Therefore, the 
Department will add the final CE to the Departmental Manual at 516 DM 
14.5 paragraph F., which covers ``Title Transfer Activities.'' 
Reclamation recognizes that certain proposed title transfer actions, 
when reviewed on a case-by-case basis, could trigger one or more of the 
extraordinary circumstances for which it is not appropriate to utilize 
the CE. In such cases, the proposed title transfer actions could have a 
significant environmental effect and would require additional NEPA 
analysis. Thus, prior to applying the CE, Reclamation will review all 
extraordinary circumstances in the Department's NEPA regulations. If 
any extraordinary circumstance does apply, Reclamation will conduct 
additional NEPA analysis and prepare an EA or EIS.

Amended Text for the Departmental Manual

    The text that will be added to 516 DM is set forth below:

Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Chapter 14: Managing the NEPA Process--Bureau of Reclamation
* * * * *

14.5 Categorical Exclusions

* * * * *

F. Title Transfer Activities

* * * * *
    (1) Transfer from Federal ownership of facilities and/or interest 
in lands to a qualifying entity where there are no competing demands 
for use of the facilities; where the facilities are not hydrologically 
integrated; where, at the time of transfer, there would be no planned 
change in land or water use, or in operation, or maintenance of the 
facilities; and where the transfer would be consistent with the 
Secretary's responsibilities, including but not limited to existing 
contracts or agreements, the protection of land resources and water 
rights held in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and Indian 
individuals, and ensuring compliance with international treaties and 
interstate compacts.

Michaela E. Noble,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-10967 Filed 5-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332-90-P