24 



We recognize that a number of watersheds, of course, do span 

 State boundaries as we have heard. We would like to encourage 

 those States to undertake that planning and management coopera- 

 tively where that is possible. 



Depending on the scale at which watershed boundaries are deter- 

 mined, much of the management can occur within a single State. It 

 has been problematic in some cases for States with a shared estua- 

 rine or riverine boundary to cooperate as we would like to have 

 them do. 



We certainly intend to encourage that interstate cooperation and 

 intend to encourage watershed management generally. 



Ms. FuRSE. I think that is very essential in the whole issue of 

 keeping watersheds intact. Thank you. 



Mr. Studds. The gentleman from Maryland. 



Mr. GiLCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few quick 

 questions. 



Could you tell us how once the NAS — National Academy of Sci- 

 ence — study is complete, how will that impact the present wetlands 

 policy that the President has given us? 



Mr. Wayland. Mr. Gilchrest, we have indicated that we would 

 not intend to change wetland delineation procedures from those in- 

 corporated in the 1987 Corps manual until we have the NAS re- 

 sults in hand, which is probably going to be about a year. 



It may be that the NAS indicates that current procedures are 

 adequate and appropriate and scientifically justified, in which case 

 we would not expect to make a change at all. We have to look at 

 their recommendations and determine whether or not they war- 

 rant a change. 



We have indicated that if we believe a change is warranted, we 

 will do two things before implementing it: We would engage in a 

 public notice and comment process so the outside world will gener- 

 ally have a chance to indicate views on it, and we would also at- 

 tempt to field test any alternative recommended procedures. 



One of the difficulties that arose with the 1989 manual was that 

 there was no field testing before it was proposed. It was only after 

 the field testing occurred that some of the glaring deficiencies 

 really became apparent. 



We believe that those two steps will assure that we are not going 

 to jerk the steering wheel again on this program without being cer- 

 tain that it is appropriate and necessary to do so. 



Mr. Gilchrest. If the NAS study does show a significant differ- 

 ence in the way in which a wetland is identified from the present 

 1987 procedure, will the administration, once it is scientifically, put 

 quotes around that, assume that that is what a true wetlands is, or 

 how would they put that in force? 



For example, there are some pretty big differences between sur- 

 face water seven days within 18 inches of the surface and 14 days 

 within 18 inches of the surface. So there are some significant dif- 

 ferences. 



If the NAS study does find that the 1989 manual — let's just use 

 that for a hypothetical purposes — was in fact correct, will those 

 more strict guidelines for delineation be put into place? 



Mr. Wayland. We certainly want to understand what this group 

 of eminent scientists has to tell us about the appropriateness of the 



