Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
The nonpoint source assessment report should include four categories of
information:
- An identification of navigable waters that cannot be expected to attain or
maintain tribal water quality standards without the control of nonpoint source
pollution. If the tribe does not have water quality standards, state standards
can be used for evaluation of water quality.
- An identification of the categories and subcategories of nonpoint source
pollution that contribute to the water quality problems for the individual
waters identified in paragraph (1). For a listing of major nonpoint source
pollution categories and subcategories, refer to the latest
Guidelines for
the Preparation of State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports),
published by EPA.
- A description of how the tribe will identify the best management practices
(BMPs) needed to control each category and subcategory of nonpoint source
pollution identified in paragraph (2), as well as a description of how the
management practices will be used to reduce the level of pollution resulting
from these sources. Such factors as public participation and
inter/intragovernmental coordination should be included.
- A description of any existing tribal, state, federal, and other programs
that might be used for controlling nonpoint source pollution.
Model for a Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
Section 319(a) of the Clean Water Act specifies the information that must be
included in tribal nonpoint source assessment reports. To facilitate the
preparation of these reports, a detailed guide to nonpoint source assessment
report preparation follows.
Reference Documentation. Some tribes or states may already have collected
data that will assist in developing a nonpoint source assessment report. With
this information, tribes can assess nonpoint source pollution problems and
determine baseline
water quality data without completing additional water quality surveys. States
and tribes can also use the data collected with section 106 funds to help
identify high-priority problems.
Components . The following sections should be included in the nonpoint
source assessment report:
-
Cover — The cover should contain at least a title and
the date (month and year) of the assessment.
-
Contents — The contents should consist of the heading of each
major section of the assessment report and its page number.
-
List of tables — If tables are included in the nonpoint source
assessment report, a separate list should identify each table and its page
number.
-
List of figures — If figures are included, a separate list
should identify each figure and its page number.
-
List of appendices — If appendices are included, a separate
list should identify each appendix.
-
Main body of report — The sections that follow serve as a model
for the content of each section of the nonpoint source assessment report.
Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
For the most part, the examples that follow have been drawn from approved
tribal nonpoint source assessment reports and management programs.
OVERVIEW
In the overview, state the purpose of the report and explain the need for a
nonpoint source assessment report for the tribal lands. Also provide a general
summary of the analysis that will follow, stressing major conclusions and broad
areas of concern. Discuss only significant data and general findings in this
section. The section should be concise and ideally should not exceed one page
in length.
|
Four statewide water quality assessments completed in 1988 greatly increased
the information base for this report. These include assessments of point and
nonpoint source pollution influencing rivers and streams; lakes and ponds;
ground water; and an assessment of toxic pollutant sources. Some degree of
threat was estimated to exist for 908 river miles or 20% of those which fully
support their uses at the present time. A higher level of threat (86%) was
attributed to the uses of 153,319 acres of lakes which presently fully support
their uses.
Nonpoint sources are the most widespread sources of water pollution. The
four most common nonpoint types of water quality impairments in rivers are
siltation/turbidity, habitat alterations, nutrient enrichment, and flow
alterations. Other common problems are thermal modifications and pathogens. The
most significant sources of these impairments were agricultural runoff,
hydromodification below hydropower dams and erosion from construction
sites.
|
INTRODUCTION
In the introduction, include the goals and objectives of the nonpoint source
assessment report. An example of a goal statement is “to identify the
nature and extent or threat of nonpoint source pollution on tribal lands and
waters.” Objectives should be specific, measurable actions or intentions
that lead to achievement of the goal(s).
|
The goal of the Assessment and Management Plan is to provide guidance for
future efforts to effectively and efficiently address nonpoint sources of water
pollution on the Umatilla Indian Reservation and throughout the Umatilla River
watershed. The objectives of the Assessment and Management Plan are (1) to
document water quality and watershed conditions, (2) to draw linkages between
upstream-downstream and channel-upslope conditions, and (3) to elucidate a
broad approach (technical, policy, and legal issues) to address currently
degraded conditions.
|
METHODOLOGY
In the methodology section, describe how and where the data for the analysis
of the nonpoint sources of pollution were obtained. Also describe any uncommon
software or evaluation techniques. Describe thoroughly how the study was
conducted, as well as any assumptions made in the analysis. In addition,
include a listing of all documents referenced and environmental specialists
contacted. Details to be included are (
FPAST, 1993a
):
- Explanations of abbreviations or classifications developed specifically for
the assessment (e.g., “Drainage areas were divided into subunits for more
precise analysis of the tribal waters”).
- Types of sampling and purpose of the sampling (e.g., macroinvertebrates,
metal concentrations, nutrient loadings, concentrations of particular toxic
substances).
- Assumptions made during the course of the analysis (e.g., “Water
quality assessments for each surface waterbody were completed based on the
state surface water classification system and the uses designated for
each”).
|
Direct contacts to secure data were made with state and federal agencies.
Data were primarily accessed through EPA Region 10’s STORET water quality
data base. Information obtained from STORET had as its primary sources the
USDI-Bureau of Reclamation, USDA-Forest Service, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, and the USDI-Geological Survey/Oregon Water Resources
Department. Information (primarily stream temperature) was also obtained
directly from the Pendleton office of the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)
Fisheries Program. Ground water quality data from sporadic sampling (primarily
1987-1990) were obtained from CTUIR Water Resources Program. Summarized data on
ground water was also obtained from Oregon’s Statewide Assessment of
Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. Other potential sources which were
contacted but from which no data were obtained were the Oregon Department of
Forestry, the Columbia-Blue Mountain Resource Conservation and Development
Council, the Umatilla County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the
USDA-Agricultural Research Service.
Water quality information in STORET is geo-referenced by latitude and
longitude and therefore we were able to create a geographic information system
(GIS) layer of sampling/monitoring locations. This was overlaid on the
1:100,000 EPA River Reach file obtained from the Oregon State GIS Service
Center located in the Oregon Department of Energy in Salem. An additional
overlay was created by CTUIR staff of “subwatersheds” based on
watershed boundaries, sampling/monitoring stations, and land use. The map of
River Reaches, with sampling/monitoring locations and subwatershed boundary
overlays, was created at the 1:250,000 scale.
|
LAND USE SUMMARY
The purpose of this section is to describe in general the existing
conditions on the tribal lands. Begin this section with a description of the
tribal lands and include a map of the area, as well as a regional location map
of the area.
Click on map above for larger view.
Figure 1. Fort Peck Indian Reservation
|
A brief description of land uses and socioeconomic conditions is also
included in this section.
|
The Cherokee lands in North Carolina consist of approximately 56,000 acres,
of which 48,688 acres are located in Swain and Jackson counties. Since the
majority of the land and water resources which comprise the reservation are
located in Swain, Haywood, and Jackson counties, this area alone represents the
target of this assessment. The remaining lands in Cherokee and Graham counties
present a “checkerboard” pattern, and the tribe does not own
sufficient tracts of land to have any control over the water quality of the
streams involved. These areas will be assessed at a later date, as funding is
available, to determine what measures are needed to prevent/correct nonpoint
source pollution problems from these lands. Consideration will be given to
adopting state water quality standards for these areas in Cherokee and Graham
counties.
The Cherokee Indian Reservation is located in the southern Appalachian
Mountains of western North Carolina. Thin soils and steep topography
characterize the land as highly erodible. Much of the land on the reservation
is covered in timber, and tribal members frequently log individual tracts of
land. Developed land is utilized for housing, public buildings, and commercial
structures associated with tourism (i.e., motels, restaurants, attractions).
Other tourist attractions include trout fishing and camping.
|
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
The purpose of this section is to thoroughly describe the existing
conditions of the tribal waters. A detailed map of the reservation waters and a
complete description of the waters are the focus of this section.
Figure 2. Stream Basins - Fort Peck Indian Reservation
|
|
Porcupine-Milk River Drainage - The Porcupine-Milk River Drainage is located
on the west side of the reservation. The Porcupine is a C-3 classification.
Waters classified C-3 are suitable for bathing; swimming and recreation; and
growth and propagation of non-salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life,
waterfowl, and furbearers. The quality of these waters is naturally marginal
for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes, agriculture, and
industrial water supply. The existing land uses are predominantly rangeland,
dryland crop agriculture, and limited irrigated lands. The dryland crop
agriculture is characterized by strip fallow operations and associated saline
seeps common to the northern great plains. Land ownership is a mix of fee
title, allotted, trust, and tribal lands.
Biological Condition Values over the past 3 years for this drainage range
from 23 (severe) to 50 (moderate). The habitat impairment values on the
Porcupine range from 62 to 88 out of total score of 100. The supportability
rating ranges from partial support to full support over the past 3 years. Some
sections rated full support, but threatened.
|
Describe all surface water and ground water hydrology and quality. Include
appropriate graphics highlighting existing water quality conditions. They
should be in chart or tabular form wherever possible for ease of reading and
interpretation.
Figure 3. Use Support Status for Assessed Rivers and Streams - Vermont
State Summary
|
Existing nonpoint source pollution reduction programs for the tribal lands
should be identified and generally discussed in this section. These programs
may be tribal, local, state, or federal programs used by the tribe that deal
with nonpoint source management on tribal lands.
|
The Tribe has a limited number of programs in place to deal with issues
related to nonpoint source pollution. The Tribe has begun an environmental
education program to alert tribal members to the various types of pollution and
to activities that assist in protecting the environment. For erosion and
sediment control, a sediment catch basin has been constructed at the Tribal
landfill to control sediment loss during storm events.
|
|
Programs for controlling nonpoint sources of pollution continue to evolve
and have included initiatives at local, state, and federal levels. A state
strategy for identifying and reducing nonpoint source problems was designed as
early as February 1975. Nonpoint source control programs that have been
developed and are being implemented across Vermont are presented below by
nonpoint source category.Agriculture - Federal programs for controlling agricultural nonpoint source
pollution in Vermont provide opportunities for landowners to voluntarily
cooperate with one of fourteen Natural Resources Conservation Districts
throughout Vermont in order to become eligible for federal financial and
technical assistance from the USDA’s Agriculture Stabilization and
Conservation Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Federal
programs in Vermont to control agricultural nonpoint sources include the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, the Resource Conservation
and Development Program, the Rural Clean Water Program, and the Agricultural
Conservation Program.
|
RESULTS
In this section, present the available scientific information related to
nonpoint source pollution on the tribal lands. Also provide data tables for
surface water and ground water. Include details such as the following:
- Name of the waterbody
- Size/length
- Pollutant identified in the segment or cause of impairment (source of
pollutant, if possible)
- Severity of impairment
|
Waterbody
|
Stream (miles)
|
Pollutant
|
Source
|
Severity
|
| Porcupine / Sargent Creek
|
12
|
NH3, Fe, P
|
Grazing, Roads
|
Moderate
|
| Porcupine / Lower Fork
|
32
|
Temperature
|
Agriculture
|
Moderate
|
|
Discuss each major type of water quality parameter or pollutant (e.g., fecal
coliform, total suspended solids, phosphorus, toxics) and identify waterbodies
moderately or severely impacted by each.
|
Bacteria - Either one or both of the state water quality criteria for fecal
coliform bacteria and enterococcus are frequently exceeded for the Umatilla
River below the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Butter Creek, Birch Creek, McKay
Creek, and parts of Wildhorse Creek. Very high levels of coliform bacteria are
recorded at the Umatilla River at Rieth station. Sources are municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, individual septic/drainfield systems, confined
animal feeding areas, soil from surface or streambank/bed erosion.
Stream Temperature - This parameter has the best monitoring coverage, both
in terms of geographic extent and period of record. The state water quality
standard for stream temperature, 68o F (20o C), is exceeded throughout the
Umatilla River Basin for an extended period each year, usually mid-June through
mid-September. The only exceptions are the North Fork Umatilla River and Buck
Creek, both of which are in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness Area on the
Umatilla National Forest; temperatures above 68o F occur infrequently. The
primary causes of high stream temperatures are removal of riparian vegetation
(habitat alteration), water withdrawal (flow alteration), and irrigation return
flow.
|
|
Nutrients - Nutrients of concern on the Reservation are nitrogen and
phosphorus. They originate from fertilizers, animal and human wastes, urban
runoff, and natural sources. Nutrients may stimulate excessive growth of algae
in rivers or nuisance aquatic weeds in lakes and reservoirs, rendering water
aesthetically unattractive or unsuitable for recreation. Grazing and farming
practices on the Reservation contribute to increased nutrient levels. A
“threshold” value of 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus is exceeded for the
Umatilla River from below Gibbon to the mouth and in Wildhorse and McKay
Creeks. In addition, ground water has been impacted by nitrates.
|
Summary tables are also effective in documenting the impacts of various
pollutants. Tables should include, at a minimum, the information provided in
the example below.
| Pollutant
|
Major Impact (miles)
|
Minor Impact (miles)
|
| Pathogens
|
64.2
|
174.4
|
| Thermal modification
|
116.3
|
358.4
|
| Nutrient
|
205.0
|
121.6
|
|
Analyze the data according to category of nonpoint source pollution (e.g.,
agriculture, silviculture, urban, construction). Identify the waterbodies
affected by each category and the severity of impacts. For each category,
identify nonpoint source pollution subcategories if possible. For a listing of
major nonpoint source pollution categories and subcategories, refer to the
latest Guidelines for the Preparation of State Water Quality Assessments
(305(b) Reports), published by EPA.
| Waterbody
|
Cause
|
Source (subcategory)
|
Degree of Impact
|
| Raven Fork
|
siltationpH
|
silviculture
(road maintenance)
other
(atmospheric deposition)
|
moderatehigh
|
| Bunches Creek
|
organic
enrichment,
siltation
|
land disposal
(septic tanks)
construction
(land development)
|
slighthigh
|
| Adams Creek
|
organic
enrichment
|
agriculture
(hog feedlot)
|
slight
|
|
DISCUSSION
In this section, discuss the information presented in the Results section.
Highlight the waters that are impaired by nonpoint source pollution and require
nonpoint source control measures. Identify the categories of nonpoint source
pollution (e.g., agriculture, silviculture, construction) that are causing the
majority of the impaired water uses, and rank them based on the amount of
quantifiable impairment. In addition, include a description of the relationship
between nonpoint source pollution and specific impaired water quality
parameters, as well as any subsequent effects.
- Excess salts in the water supply due to nonpoint source pollution are
impairing water used for livestock watering and irrigation.
- High nutrient levels in drinking water that are generated by agricultural
runoff are increasing the risk of human health problems.
- High sedimentation rates caused by upstream construction are destroying
vital fish spawning habitat.
|
SELECTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The purpose of this section is to identify the established process for
selecting best management practices (BMPs) on the tribal lands. Include in this
section:
- Core participants. In addition to listing the agency(ies), organization(s),
or task force(s) responsible for BMP selection, briefly describe their mission
statements and membership composition.
|
The process to identify BMPs has been conducted in conjunction with the
Vermont Nonpoint Source Task Force. The Task Force was established by the
Secretary of the State Agency of Natural Resources in part to secure public
participation in the nonpoint source control planning process. Membership
consists of 20 representatives from a broad range of organizations including
the Vermont Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resources Conservation
Districts, Soil Conservation Service, private consultants, the Home Builders
Association of Northern Vermont, and others listed in the Appendix.
The Task Force adopted the following mission statement: “To prepare by
August 4, 1988, portions of a four-year management program for nonpoint source
pollution in Vermont as required by the 1987 Amendments to the Federal Clean
Water Act; specifically, (1) to identify or develop BMPs for controlling each
of these sources of nonpoint pollution; (2) to identify most appropriate means
of implementing the BMPs; (3) to estimate the relative significance of various
sources of nonpoint pollution in Vermont such as agriculture, silviculture,
construction, urban runoff, and water course modification; and (4) to solicit
public comment on these conclusions.”
With the aid of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Task Force examined the technical standards for all major nonpoint sources of
pollutants identified in Vermont, including agricultural operations, hydropower
facilities, and construction sites. Seven were recognized by the Task Force as
having water pollution control standards which are either inadequate or which
need further study for technical adequacy. Where there were two standards, the
Task Force recommended the BMP which should be favored as the “state
standard” for a specified source. Although the Task Force is concerned
with emerging problems, the highest priority is to assure that appropriate
standards exist for the most serious nonpoint sources and to conduct further
assessment on those sources which have led to serious impacts.
In addition to Task Force review of technical standards, BMPs are routinely
evaluated by the Agency of Natural Resources. The Agency is continually
upgrading its own rules and policies and urging other federal and state
agencies to do the same with their own standards.
|
Also identify the level of participation for each agency, organization, or
task force. Examples of levels of participation include:
Technical assistance
Education
Demonstration projects
Financial assistance
- Public participation and governmental coordination. In this section,
highlight the use of public participation and public comment in the process of
selecting BMPs and any inter/intragovernmental coordination.
|
Tribal Council procedure provides public participation and public comment. A
resolution authorizes submittal of the assessment plan to other federal
agencies. Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires each tribe to
describe tribal and local programs for controlling pollution from nonpoint
sources. There are numerous programs, administered by a variety of agencies,
which aim to control nonpoint source pollution. County conservation districts
are designated the nonpoint source management agencies for non-federal lands.
The program is intended to encourage adoption and implementation of BMPs.
Technical assistance, education, demonstration projects, and financial
assistance are used to implement BMPs.
|
- Specific programs. Discuss any specific programs (e.g., U.S. Department of
Agriculture cost-share programs) that have been contacted for BMP selection
assistance. An example of the appropriate level of detail follows.
|
The U.S. Department of Agriculture cost-share programs offer financial
incentives for implementation of BMPs on agricultural lands on the Fort Peck
Reservation. The Corps of Engineers’ 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program
controls nonpoint source pollution resulting from hydromodification activities.
The Montana Salinity Control Association, a consortium of conservation
districts in dryland farming areas, provides educational and technical
assistance to implement agricultural management practices to control saline
seep.
The Tribal Water Resource Control Commission conducts water quality
monitoring, assesses and prioritizes nonpoint and point source problems,
develops solutions, and provides management of these problems. A priority list
is kept of stream segments and lakes that have assessed man-caused water
quality problems. The list is used to focus and conserve limited management
resources.
|
- Existing BMPs. Describe existing BMPs, organized by category of nonpoint
source pollution. A table is a straightforward way of listing the existing
BMPs.
|
Agriculture BMPs
| BMP
|
Nonpoint Source Category (subcategory)
|
| Channel vegetation
|
Dryland crop production
|
| Fencing
|
Feedlots/animal holding
|
| Crop residue use
|
Dryland crop production,
Irrigated crop production
|
| Windbreak renovation
|
Dryland crop production
|
| Range seeding
|
Rangeland/grazing
|
|
- Pollution reduction. Finally, include a description of the process that
will be used to reduce the level of pollution resulting from identified
nonpoint sources of water pollution.
|
Fort Peck’s Section 319 program will emphasize agriculture. The process
for identifying BMPs for this category will consist of adopting USDA-Natural
Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide standards.
Agriculture - The BMPs selected from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service standards and specifications are currently in use by a majority of the
producers on the reservation. Additional BMPs addressing pesticide application,
fertilizer management, and streambank stabilization may need to be added. One
or more BMPs known as a resource management system will be selected for each
land use within a targeted watershed. Proper application of a resource
management system will ensure the nonpoint source pollution is minimized.
Cooperating agencies will develop new BMPs if appropriate ones do not exist to
solve a specific problem.
Utilization of agricultural BMPs for nonpoint source water pollution control
on Fort Peck is voluntary. Success in solving nonpoint source pollution
problems has been limited primarily to smaller streams and projects.
|
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS
For each category of nonpoint source pollution (e.g., agriculture,
silviculture, urban), identify and describe all available programs for
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution regardless of whether they are
currently being used on the tribal lands. These should include tribal, local,
state, or federal programs that deal with nonpoint source pollution management
on the reservation.
- Agricultural Conservation Program
- Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging
Jobs
- Corps of Engineers’ 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Program
- State Land Use and Development Control Laws
|
CONCLUSIONS
This section provides a summary of the key findings of the nonpoint source
assessment report and lists special concerns. Identify the category(ies) of
nonpoint source pollution that is/are most detrimental and will be targeted
through the section 319 program.
|
Four nonpoint source categories are responsible for a significant fraction
of the threatened or impaired waterbodies on the reservation: agriculture,
hydromodification, mining, and land disposal. BMPs have been developed and are
identified in the Fort Peck nonpoint source management plan. Fort Peck’s
Section 319 program will emphasize agriculture. The process for identifying
BMPs for this category will consist of adopting USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide standards.
The BMPs selected from the NRCS standards and specification are currently in
use by a majority of the producers on the reservation. Additional BMPs
addressing pesticide application, fertilizer management and streambank
stabilization may need to be added. Cooperating agencies will develop new BMPs
if appropriate ones do not exist to solve a specific problem.
|
REFERENCES
This section provides bibliographic information on sources cited or referred
to in the text of the report.
APPENDICES
Include in the appendices additional information that is important to the
understanding of a certain section of the report, but not significant enough to
be included in the body of the text. This material should be supplementary to
the information presented in the body of the text.
- Criteria for designated use support classification.
- Documentation of pollution sources affecting tribal rivers and
streams.
- Selected portions of toxics assessment reports that are relevant to tribal
waters.
- Membership lists for local nonpoint source task forces and member
affiliations.
- Current ground water nonpoint source pollution assessment reports.
- Descriptions of Waterbody System information categories.
- Relevant tribal government resolutions relating to nonpoint source
pollution.
|
ACRONYM LIST
In this section, provide a list of acronyms used throughout the nonpoint
source assessment report.
Sources
Documents that might provide additional assistance during the preparation of
a nonpoint source assessment report include:
-
Waterbody System Users Manual (WBS 1996) - Available from USEPA
Regional Offices (August 1995)
-
Supplemental EPA Region VIII Guidance: Water Quality Standards for
Indian Tribes - USEPA, Region 8, Water Management Division (June 1995)
-
Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports) - USEPA, Office of Water (May 1995; updated
every 2 years)
-
A Tribal Guide to the Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Program -
USEPA, Office of Water (September 1994)
-
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters - USEPA, Office of Water (January 1993)
-
Reference Guide to Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes -
USEPA, Office of Water (January 1990)
-
Nonpoint Source Guidance - USEPA, Office of Water (December
1987)
-
Surface Water and Wetlands Protection Program Operating Guidance FY
1988 - USEPA, Office of Water (April 1987)
|
