CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE (2014)

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE

COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW INDIANS

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

ASSESSMENT

31 OCTOBER 2014

VERSION 3.0

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE

COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW INDIANS

1245 FULTON AVENUE

COOS BAY, OREGON 97420

(541) 888-9577

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE

COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW INDIANS

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

1.2 REQUIRED CONTENTS OF INDIAN TRIBES ASSESSMENT REPORT

2.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1 GENERAL SETTING

2.1.1 TRIBAL RESERVATION, TRUST & FEE TO TRUST LAND HOLDINGS

2.1.2 NONPOINT SOURCES PROGRAMS

2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

2.2.1 CONTRIBUTORS TO NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

2.2.2 METHODS FOR CONDUCTING NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT

2.3 GOALS & OBJECTIVES

2.4 ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

3.1 REPORTING FORMAT

3.2 WATERS IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCE

3.2.1 COOS WATERSHED

3.2.2 NORTH FORK SIUSLAW WATERSHED

3.2.3 SIXES WATERSHED

3.2.4 EFFECTS OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS

3.3 FORMULATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

4.0 CONCLUSION

5.0 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA & SIUSLAW INDIANS

31 OCTOBER 2014

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians have created

this report to undertake a nonpoint assessment of the water quality on its reservation, fee

and trust lands. The assessment is meant to identify problems from nonpoint sources and

to form the foundation for the nonpoint management plan. The report is intended to

guide the Tribes through the process of adhering to the Clean Water Act, As Amended, as

well as to ensure the health of members, neighbors and the land. The first version of this

assessment was completed in December 2003. The Tribal non-point source pollution

assessment is subject to annual review and revision as necessary, but should be revised

no less frequently than once every five years.

According to the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and data

collected by the Confederated Tribes Department of Natural Resources, much of the

tribal land includes or abuts waterways with significant nonpoint pollution. These

conditions coupled with an increasing need to manage its resources and maintain active

environmental monitoring make the assessment a critical part of the Tribes’ overall goals.

This document focuses on Tribal owned tracts and identifies the threats facing waterways

on or adjacent to tribal lands. From the current situation, this assessment describes the

process by which the Tribes will develop their best management practices (BMP), along

with the Tribes’ proposed use of those BMPs.

The most impactful nonpoint threats to tribal waterways and lands appear to be related to

a loss of riparian habitat that would normally keep summer water temperatures lower. In

addition, pollution in the form of fecal coliform contamination and low oxygen levels

suggests that a comprehensive approach to managing overall land use would benefit

water quality. This management will have to include addressing the disposal of human

and animal wastes, coupled with control of fertilizer and other chemical use.

1.1 OVERVIEW

The work of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians to

assess the nonpoint pollution threats and problems on tribal land is irrevocably linked to

the Federal Clean Water Act. The Act established the parameters and requirements for

the control, limitation, and remediation of water pollution. Water pollution was therein

considered as resulting from both point and nonpoint sources. Unlike point sources that

are relatively easy to location, monitor and control, nonpoint sources - those that are from

indistinct, diffuse, and multiple sites - are much more difficult to identify and control.

Despite the difficulties associated with assessing and responding to nonpoint pollution

sources, the original enabling legislation for the Clean Water Act did recognize nonpoint

pollution as an area of particular concern. The importance of controlling this pollution

was noted in the Act: "The national policy (is) that programs for the control of nonpoint

sources pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious (manner) so as to

enable the goals of this Act to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint

sources of pollution." Consequently, the Federal Government has made funding

available to Indian Tribes to qualify for funding to implement nonpoint pollution

management activities.

To assist Tribes, the Clean Water Act, as amended, includes section 319, “Nonpoint

Source Management Programs,” combined with Section 518, which allows up to onethird of one percent of appropriations for Sections 319 (j), (h) and (i), to be set aside for

Indian Tribes treated in a manner similar to States. Together these sections constitute the

statutory basis for the Tribes to implement nonpoint source programs. In addition, the

above noted sections set forth the requirements that all Indian Tribes must meet to qualify

for assistance. Section 319 identifies two things that the Tribes must complete to be

eligible for Section 319 and Section 518(f) grants to control nonpoint source problems.

The first of these requirements is a tribal assessment report and the second is a tribal

management program.

This document was originally created, in part, to satisfy the first requirement. According

to the Act, the assessment report is intended to provide an analysis of nonpoint source

water quality problems. With the foundation created by this document, the management

program will respond by identifying the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua

and Siuslaw Indians’ process for correcting these problems. The Confederated Tribes of

Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians have developed the assessment and

management plans as separate documents. Nonetheless, the two documents are intended

to work together and be a combined firmament for decision-making. This assessment

and the associated management plan will also be integrated into the Environmental Plan

being developed by the Department of Natural Resources at the suggestion of the EPA

and with EPA funding under the Indian General Assistance Program.

1.2 REQUIRED CONTENTS OF INDIAN TRIBES ASSESSMENT REPORT

1 “Fort Peck Reservation Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report,” available at the EPA website:

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/fortpeck/fprnspar.html (.) The entire section is mostly a direct quote from

this source.

Section 319 (a) of the Clean Water Act, As Amended, is very specific in describing what

needs to be included in assessment reports:

(a) Indian Tribes Assessment Reports

(1) Contents –Each Indian Tribe shall prepare and submit to the administrator for

approval, a report which –

(A) identifies those navigable waters within the Reservation, which, without additional

action to control sources of pollution, cannot be reasonably expected to attain or maintain

applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act;

(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources or, where

appropriate, particular nonpoint sources which add significant pollution to each portion of

the navigable waters identified under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to

such portions not meeting such water quality standards or such goals and requirements;

management practices and measures to control each category and subcategory of

nonpoint sources and where appropriate particular nonpoint sources identified under

subparagraph (3) and to reduce to the maximum extent practicable, the level of pollution

resulting from such category, subcategory or source; and

(D) identifies and describes Tribal, State and local programs for controlling pollution

added from nonpoint sources to, and approving the quality of, each portion of the

navigable waters, including but not limited to those programs which are receiving Federal

assistance under sections (h) and (i).

The requirements are clear. The report must identify waters on the Confederated Tribes

of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Reservation, as well as any other trust or

fee lands, which cannot or will not meet water quality standards; are not supporting

beneficial uses; will not support these uses due to pollution from nonpoint sources; and

the types of activities or specific sources which cause these problems. The report must

also describe the Tribes’ process for identifying best management practices and the

programs and sources of funding for controlling nonpoint sources of pollution. The

Confederated Tribes will use the State of Oregon Water Quality standards in the reports

for assessing impacts to water quality from nonpoint source pollution.

2.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1 GENERAL SETTING

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Ancestral

Territory included the central and south-central coast of Oregon. This homeland included

the coast, estuaries, tributaries, lakes, and upland forests of the Coos, lower Umpqua

Smith, and Siuslaw Rivers, and other coastal tributaries. The Federal Government

terminated official recognition of the Tribes in 1954, however, after thirty years of

struggle, the federal recognition of the Tribes was restored in 1984. The Tribes today

have 1094 members, approximately half of whom live in the Tribes’ five-county service

area. Today, the Tribes have a total of 530 acres of land, 152 acres of which are in trust

and 378 acres of which are in the process of being transferred into trust status. This

assessment focuses on the reservation and trust land, as well as the acreage currently

being transferred to trust. Additionally, the assessment will provide a basis for

examining other lands once they have attained trust status.

2.1.1 TRIBAL RESERVATION , TRUST & FEE TO TRUST LAND HOLDINGS

The Tribes hold land in three Oregon counties in a patchwork of unconnected tracts.

The holdings are located in Coos, Curry and Lane Counties and consist of mostly

wetlands, forestlands, economically and residentially developed lands, and historic sites

of cultural significance. Figure one highlights the three Oregon Counties in which the

Tribes hold land.

FIGURE 1. MAP OF OREGON COUNTIES & THE THREE COUNTIES IN WHICH THE

TRIBES HOLD LAND .

Legend

Oregon Counties

Lane County

Coos County

Curry County

TABLE 1. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS , LOWER UMPQUA AND SIUSLAW

INDIANS LAND

Tract Name

SIXES RIVER

GREGORY POINT

KENTUCK SLOUGH

EMPIRE (TRIBAL HALL)

OCEAN BLVD

MELVILLE

EICHLER

1308 NEESE

1325 NEESE

WALLACE/OCEAN

1351 OCEAN BLVD

1415 OCEAN BLVD

FLANAGAN (WUALACH)

909 FLANAGAN

CONNETICUT AVE (QAXAS)

CALIFORNIA AVE (QAXAS)

ELKS

FULTON

MILUK VILLAGE (FOSSIL POINT)

ALISHANEE

FISHER (KCBY)

EASON

COOS HEAD

CAMP EASTER SEALS

TABERNIG

WINDWARD

OCEAN DUNES

BRAINARD (DEADWOOD)

MUNSEL LAKE & MUNSEL VILLAGE

LOTT

PETERMAN

HATCH (QAAICH)

SEVERY

DUMAN

County

Acres

Adjacent Water Body

CURRY

COOS

LANE

1.25

24.0

0.02

6.07

0.66

1.83

0.33

0.21

0.23

0.24

0.35

0.32

3.32

0.16

3.50

0.50

3.31

9.77

3.75

1.43

2.24

18.8

43.38

14.00

0.12

2.03

135.7

35.59

120.14

0.25

0.06

97.31

0.56

1.65

SIXES RIVER

BIG CREEK; PACIFIC OCEAN

KENTUCK SLOUGH

N/A

COOS BAY

N/A

COOS BAY

N/A

COALBANK SLOUGH

N/A

COOS BAY; PACIFIC OCEAN

TENMILE LAKE

N/A

NORTHFORK SIUSLAW RIVER

MISERY CREEK

MUNSEL LAKE; MUNSEL CREEK

N/A

MAINSTEM & N.FORK SIUSLAW R

N/A

MAINSTEM SIUSLAW RIVER

Total

530.01

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians currently have a

patchwork of land holdings within Lane, Coos, and Curry counties. Much of this land

base is reserved as wetland, forestland, or as historic sites. In Lane County, one holding

adjoins the Siuslaw Estuary, and this holding contains small wetland areas and riparian

areas. Another Lane County holding is in proximity to this property and includes the

majority of a lake and its surrounding uplands. A third Lane County holding consists of a

portion of Misery Creek, tributary to Deadwood Creek and the mainstream Siuslaw

River. In Curry County, the Tribes hold a sliver of land along the Sixes River. In Coos

County, the Tribes hold various small tracts of both reservation and trust lands, some of

which have wetland characteristics or border streams. Three holdings border the Coos

Estuary, one holding borders the estuary and the Pacific Ocean, and another borders the

Pacific Ocean and is in close proximity to Big Creek. Four Tribal tracts are known to

border properties on EPA’s 2002 303(d) list. Over the past five years, our Tribal land

base has increased by half, with much of the new land either bordering the Pacific Ocean

creeks, lakes or rivers. Since Restoration of federal recognition, the Tribe has worked to

recover a larger portion of our homelands. The Tribes continue to pursue the restoration

of a significant acreage of forest land to be established as a Tribal Forest.

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians desire to fully

develop their environmental management capabilities in order to preserve, protect and

enhance the environmental, human health, and cultural values of the Tribes while

demonstrating the compatibility of these goals with sustainable economic development of

the Tribes’ resources. The Tribes have completed and has received approval from EPA

for their Quality Assurance Project Plan and are monitoring water quality on the

waterways and water bodies within tribal ownership. The active monitoring sites, along

with the property locations and 303(d) listings, are listed in Table 2.

TABLE 2. NAME, TYPE, TRACT STATUS , LOCATION AND 303(D) LISTING OF ACTIVE

WATER QUALITY MONITORING SITES

Site

WQE02

Tract

Wualach/

Empire

Docks

Site Type

Estuary

BIA Tract

Status

Trust

County

Coos

LAT &

LONG

(NAD

83/WGS 84

DATUM)

43° 23' 39.19'' N

124° 16' 49.42''

ODEQ 303 (d) Listing

(source: Water Quality Assessment – Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report

Database http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2012/search.asp )

Water Body: Coos River 4th Field HUC Record ID: COOS 17100304 20478

LLID River Mile: Coos Bay 1241999433842 (0 to 7.8)

Parameter: Fecal Coliform Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment yr: 2004

Beneficial Use(s): Shellfish growing Status: Water quality limited, 303(d) listed, TMDL

needed.

Water Body: Coos River 4th Field HUC Record ID: COOS 17100304 8331

LLID River Mile: Coos Bay 1241999433842 (0 to 6.5)

Parameter: Temperature Season: Summer Prev. Assessment yr: 2002

Beneficial Use(s): Anadromous fish passage; Salmonid fish rearing Status: Potential

Concern

Water Body: Sixes River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIXES 17100306 12492

LLID River Mile: Sixes River 1245439428541 (4.4 to 29.4)

Parameter: Dissolved Oxygen Season: Oct. 15 to May 15 Prev. Assessment yr: 2004

Beneficial Use(s): Salmon and steelhead spawning Status: Water quality limited, 303(d)

listed, TMDL needed.

Water Body: Sixes River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIXES 17100306 24839

LLID River Mile: Sixes River 1245439428541 (0 to 30.1)

Parameter: Dissolved Oxygen Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment yr: 2010 Beneficial

Use(s): Cold-water aquatic life Status: Water quality limited, 303(d) listed, TMDL needed.

WQS07

Sixes

River

Stream

Reservation

Curry

42° 48' 39.5'' N

124° 26' 43.3'' W

Water Body: Sixes River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIXES 17100306 13346

LLID River Mile: Sixes River 1245439428541 0 to 30.1

Parameter: Temperature Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment yr: 2004 Beneficial

Use(s): Salmon and trout rearing and migration Status: Water quality limited, 303(d) list,

TMDL needed.

Water Body: Sixes River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIXES 17100306 24838

LLID River Mile: Sixes River 1245439428541 (0 to 15.1)

Parameter: Biological Criteria Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment yr: 2010

Beneficial Use(s): Aquatic Life Status: Water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed

Water Body: Sixes River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIXES 17100306 4921

LLID River Mile: Sixes River 1245439428541 (0 to 30.1)

Parameter: Fecal Coliform Season: Summer Prev. Assessment yr: 1998

Beneficial Use(s): Water contact recreation Status: Attaining

Water Body: Sixes River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIXES 17100306 4822

LLID River Mile: Sixes River 1245439428541 (0 to 30.1)

Parameter: pH Season: Summer Prev. Assessment yr: 1998

Beneficial Use(s): Water contact recreation; Salmonid fish spawning; Resident fish &

aquatic life; Anadromous fish passage; Salmonid fish rearing Status: Attaining some

criteria/uses

TABLE 2. CONTINUED

Site

Tract

Site

Type

BIA

Tract

Status

County

LAT & LONG

(NAD 83/WGS 84

DATUM)

ODEQ 303 (d) Listing

(source: Water Quality Assessment – Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report

Database http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2012/search.asp )

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 12441

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (0 to 106)

Parameter: Dissolved Oxygen Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment yr: 2004

Beneficial Use(s): Cold-water aquatic life Status: Insufficient data

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 21144

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (0 to 19.7)

Parameter: Dissolved Oxygen Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment yr: 2004

Beneficial Use(s): Esruarine water Status: Attaining some criteria/uses

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 2764

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (5.7 to 105.9)

Parameter: Dissolved Oxygen Season: Jun. 1- Sep. 14 Prev. Assessment yr: 2002

Beneficial Use(s): Anadromous fish passage Salmonid fish rearing Status: 303(d)

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 2908

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (5.7 to 105.9)

Parameter: Dissolved Oxygen Season: September 15-May 31 Prev. Assessment yr:

2002 Beneficial Use(s): Salmonid fish spawning Status: 303(d)

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 2753

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (5.7 to 105.9)

Parameter: Fecal Coliform Season: FallWinterSpring Prev. Assessment yr: 1998

Beneficial Use(s): Water contact recreation Status: Attaining

WQE09

Qaaich/

Cox

Island

Estuary

Trust

Lane

43° 58' 27'' N

124° 04' 16'' W

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 2901

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (5.7 to 105.9)

Parameter: Fecal Coliform Season: Summer Prev. Assessment yr: 1998 Beneficial

Use(s): Water contact recreation Status: Attaining

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 20315

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (5.7 to 105.9)

Parameter: Fecal Coliform Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment yr: 2004 Beneficial

Use(s): Shellfish growing Status: Water quality limited, 303(d) listed, TMDL needed

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 2833

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (5.7 to 105.9)

Parameter: pH Season: FallWinterSpring Prev. Assessment yr: 2004 Beneficial

Use(s): Resident fish and aquatic life; Anadromous fish passage; Salmonid fish rearing;

Water contact recreation; Salmonid fish spawning Status: Attaining some criteria/uses

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 2900

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (5.7 to 105.9)

Parameter: pH Season: Summer Prev. Assessment yr: 2004 Beneficial Use(s): Water

contact recreation; Salmonid fish spawning; Resident fish and aquatic life; Anadromous

fish passage; Salmonid fish rearing; Status: Attaining some criteria/uses

Water Body: Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW 17100206 13310

LLID River Mile: Siuslaw River 1241338440157 (0 to 106) Parameter: Temperature

Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment yr: 2004 Beneficial Use(s): Salmon and trout

rearing and migration Status: Water quality limited, 303(d) listed, TMDL needed.

WQE10

WQE12

Wualach

/BLM

Boat

Ramp

Qaaich

Estuary

Trust

Coos

Water Body: Coos River 4th Field HUC Record ID: COOS 17100304 20478

LLID River Mile: Coos Bay 1241999433842 [0 to 7.8] Parameter: Fecal Coliform

Season: Year-round Prev. Assessment Yr: 2004 Beneficial Use(s): Shellfish growing

Status: Water quality limited, 303(d) listed, TMDL needed.

43° 24' 50'' N

124° 16' 44'' W

Water Body: Coos River 4th Field HUC Record ID: COOS 17100304 8331

LLID River Mile: Coos Bay 1241999433842 [0 to 6.5] Parameter: Temperature

Season: Summer Prev. Assessment Yr: 2002 Beneficial Use(s): Anadromous fish

passage; Salmonid fish rearing Status: Potential Concern

Estuary

Trust

Lane

Water Body: North Fork Siuslaw River 4th Field HUC Record ID: SIUSLAW

17100206 13297 LLID River Mile: North Fork Siuslaw River 1240795439719

(0 to 27.3) Parameter: Temperature Season: Year-round Listed: 2004 Beneficial

Use(s): Salmon and trout rearing and migration Status: Water quality limited, 303(d) list,

TMDL needed.

43° 58' 40'' N

124° 04' 48'' W

2.1.2 NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS

The Tribes have had a Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program in place since

2004. This program is charged with implementing the Confederated Tribes Nonpoint

Source Pollution Management Plan. The strategy identified in this plan is to engage with

stakeholder groups such as watershed associations to advocate for the implementation of

projects which will remediate nonpoint sources of pollution which are contributing to the

impairment of the waters of the reservation and the beneficial uses of these waters.

Currently available funding to operate this program is limited to the $33,333 per year

provided by the US EPA. While this base funding provides the Confederated Tribes the

support to basically implement the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan and

complete periodic review of the Assessment and Plan, it falls far short of what is required

to fully meet the Trust responsibility of the federal government to the Tribe and to

provide the support necessary to fully implement the Nonpoint Source Pollution

Management Plan.

2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Tribes seek to control and mitigate the effects of nonpoint pollution on their land and

waters, as well as on adjacent lands and water. Moreover, the Tribes seek to comply with

the objectives and goals of Section 319, which are to improve water quality and restore

impaired uses in waters affected by nonpoint source pollution. Significantly, the Tribes

seek to not only eliminate or prevent nonpoint source pollution they also desire to restore

harmed and affected waters, so that they will be suitable to all potential uses.

According to the EPA2, Nonpoint Source Pollution is caused by diffused sources that are

not regulated as point sources and normally is associated with agricultural, silvicultural

and urban runoff, runoff from construction activities, etc. Such pollution results in the

human-made or human-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and

radiological integrity of water. In practical terms, nonpoint source pollution does not

result from a discharge at a specific, single location (such as single pipe) but generally

results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition or percolation. Pollution

from nonpoint sources occurs when the rate at which pollutant materials entering water

courses or the ground water exceeds natural levels.

The EPA provides a clear definition of nonpoint source pollution. That definition is

related to process and emphasizes results, rather than specific source. “Nonpoint Source

Pollution (NPS) occurs when water runs over the land or through the ground, picks up

pollutants, and deposits them in surface waters or introduces them into the

groundwater.”3

2.2.1 CONTRIBUTORS TO NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

As part of this assessment, the Confederated Tribes have gathered the existing

information regarding nonpoint source pollution. The information comes from the

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Table 3 below contains the assembled

information.

Table 3 is helpful in identifying the challenges and areas of concern, however, it is

important to understand that the Tribes have a widely dispersed pattern of relatively small

ownerships. Unlike other tribes with large tracts of contiguous land and in cases

significant parts of watersheds, the Confederated Tribes are minority owners on almost

every waterway, with the exception of the Munsel Lake shoreline. Moreover, the impacts

of pollution in the table are expressed as they affect miles of stream, estuary shoreline

and acres of lake. Missing from this is a relative analysis of each problem in relationship

to each other.

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF SOURCE CATEGORIES

Tract/Location

Qaaich (Hatch) /

North Fork and

Mainstem Siuslaw River

Pollutant: Season

North Fork Siuslaw River

Temperature: Year-round

Sedimentation: Undefined Season

Mainstem Siuslaw River

Dissolved Oxygen: Jun. 1st - Sep.

14th and Sep.15th - May 31st.

Fecal Coliform: Year-round

Temperature: Year-round

Potential Sources

Riparian Degradation, Stormwater Runoff, Agricultural

Activities, Failing Septic

Systems, Urban Development

Munsel /Munsel Lake &

Creek

No Listing

N/A

Miluk Village (Empire

Cemetery)/ Coos Bay

Fecal Coliform: Year-round

pH: Year-round

Sedimentation: Undefined Season

Riparian Degradation, Stormwater Runoff, Agricultural

Activities, Failing Septic

Systems, Urban Development

Kentuck/

Kentuck Slough

Fecal Coliform: Year-round

Dissolved Oxygen: Year-round

Riparian Degradation, Stormwater Runoff, Agricultural

Activities, Failing Septic

Systems, Urban Development

Fisher (KCBY) /

Coalbank Slough

Fecal Coliform: Year-round

Temperature: Oct.1st – May 31st

& Summer

Riparian Degradation, Stormwater Runoff, Agricultural

Activities, Failing Septic

Systems, Urban Development

Sixes River/ Sixes River

Temperature: Year-round

Dissolved Oxygen: Year-round

Biological Criteria: Year-round

Fecal Coliform: Year-round

pH: Year-round

Slope Destabilization,

Riparian Degradation,

Agricultural Activities

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF SOURCE CATEGORIES – CONTINUED

Coos Head/ Coos Bay

& Pacific Ocean

Baldich (Gregory

Point)/ Big Creek &

Pacific Ocean

Wualatch (Flanagan

Pioneer Cemetery)/

Coos Bay

Camp Easter Seals/

TenMile Lake

Ocean Dunes/ North

Fork of Siuslaw River

Fecal Coliform: Year-round

pH: Year-round

Sedimentation: Undefined

Season

pH: Summer

Temperature: Year-round

Dissolved Oxygen: Undefined

Storm-water Runoff, Urban

Development

Storm-water Runoff, Urban

Development

Riparian Degradation,

Storm-water Runoff,

Agricultural Activities,

Failing Septic Systems,

Urban Development

Storm-water Runoff,

pH: Summer

Agricultural Activities,

Dissolved Oxygen: Year-round

Failing Septic Systems,

Temperature: Undefined

Urban Development

Riparian Degradation,

Temperature: Year-round

Storm-water Runoff,

Sedimentation: Undefined

Agricultural Activities,

Season

Failing Septic Systems,

Urban Development

Fecal Coliform: Year-round

pH: Year-round

Sedimentation: Undefined

Season

Brainard (Deadwood)/

Misery Creek

No listing

N/A

Duman/ Mainstem of

Siuslaw River

Dissolved Oxygen: Jun. 1st Sep. 14th and Sep.15th - May

31st.

Fecal Coliform: Year-round

Temperature: Year-round

Riparian Degradation,

Storm-water Runoff,

Agricultural Activities,

Failing Septic Systems,

Urban Development

2.2.2 METHOD FOR CONDUCTING NONPOINT S OURCE ASSESSMENT

This assessment relies on the guidance of the EPA. For its part, the EPA notes that the

assessment is case specific and that no two assessments or places are the same.

Consequently, this document relies on a range of data, sampling sources, experts,

agencies and sources. The EPA’s guidance is quoted in the Fort Peck Nonpoint Source

Pollution Assessment Report as follows:

“[There are] two levels of assessment reflecting conclusions based on ambient

monitoring data and conclusions based on other information. One level is "monitored"

waters in which the assessment is based on current site-specific ambient data. The other

level is "evaluated" waters in which the assessment is based on information other than

current site-specific ambient data, such as data on sources of pollution, predictive

modeling, fishery surveys, and ambient data which is older than five years. In the NPS

area, best professional judgment and various evaluation techniques will play an important

role.”

Using the EPA distinction between “monitored” (M) assessments and “evaluated” (E),

the Tribe will assess their parcels of land in Section 3. The significance of the EPA

guidelines for the Confederated Tribes is that it announces the Tribes’ need to be

collaborative and comprehensive in its assessment. In particular, it means that the Tribes

need to draw on all available data and sources. From that point the Tribes must analyze

the data into a “best fit” model that accounts for variation, sampling methods, omissions

and most importantly, changing conditions. Indeed the objective of the assessment is to

produce an understanding of the nonpoint source pollution problems that is as

sophisticated and helpful as possible, while retaining flexibility of response and

understanding the limits of the methodology. The assessment must be a guide for policy

makers and the management plan, not a controlled experiment without any margin for

error. The assessment is therefore conducted in good faith with support from partners

and the tribal members who all recognize a problem and the need to address nonpoint

source pollution.

2.3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this process is assess nonpoint source inputs to waters of the reservation

which impair or are likely to impair the quality of the water and interfere with the

beneficial uses of these waters, and to identify alternate management practices and to

implement measures to reverse the impairments. The objective of this process is to

identify specific water bodies in Tribal holdings which are impaired and to the extent

possible identify the processes contributing to the impairments. Meeting this objective is

a necessary step in reversing the impairments. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower

Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians consider the beneficial use of water as those defined and

which are protected by adopted law by the Tribes, by the State of Oregon, and by the

Federal Government when appropriate. The beneficial uses include the state’s

classifications and water quality standards. If conditions exceed the state maximum

standards, this assessment presumes that beneficial uses are impaired.

2.4 ASSESSMENT PROCESS

As noted above, this assessment of the Confederated Tribes relies on data and analysis

from many sources. These sources include reports generated by the Confederated Tribes,

State and Federal Government reports, Watershed Associations, and individuals

knowledgeable about local water quality conditions. Included in this list are water quality

management plans, water quality assessment (303d) reports, and watershed assessments

prepared by watershed associations and State and Federal agencies. Included also are the

Confederated Tribes’ Water Quality Monitoring Strategy, Quality Assurance Project Plan

(QAAP), Unified Watershed Assessment; and annual Water Quality Data Summaries for

the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Reservation.

Finally, the assessment also uses and relies on the professional judgment of water quality

and land management professionals.

In 2004, he Confederated Tribes initiated independent sampling of waterways or land of

and pertaining to the reservation. This sampling has confirmed Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for data and preliminary analysis.

As per the EPA approved QAPP, the Confederated Tribes sample, test and document six

core water quality parameters for estuarine sites. These parameters include pH, dissolved

oxygen, temperature, turbidity, salinity, and conductivity. For stream sites, staff will not

collect data on water salinity. Bacteria and nutrients are also sampled, and where

applicable, the Tribes also complete habitat assessments and macroinvertebrate sampling.

These six parameters have helped to establish a better understanding of possible water

quality impairments. The Tribes understand this basis is not comprehensive. Indeed, the

sampling regimen is not designed or intended to answer all questions regarding water

quality conditions on Tribal properties, but instead it will provide important baseline data

that will help direct future efforts and strategies necessary to monitor changes in water

quality condition. This monitoring helps identify areas of water quality concern on Tribal

properties and provides direction for future water quality improvement projects.

Groundwater is monitored at two tracts. At the Hatch Tract, ambient groundwater is

monitored. Parameters monitored include conductivity, nutrients, and bacteria.

Groundwater on the upgradient and entering the property is monitored, as is groundwater

downgradient and leaving the property immediately adjacent to the North Fork Siuslaw

River. At the Coos Head Tract, ambient and impacted groundwater is being monitored

by the Air National Guard under the supervision of the Confederated Tribes as part of

thea ssessment and remediation of contaminants of concern at known and suspected areas

of concern which are a legacy of past use by the US Navy and Air National Guard of this

tract.

The methods employed within this project are structured to provide an initial

understanding of the Tribe’s water resources. For any parameter or any additional

parameters that stand out as areas of concern, more comprehensive methods, sampling

frequency, and sampling duration may be developed to acquire a more detailed

understanding for the parameter in question.

As part of the Tribal Water Quality Monitoring Strategy and this document, the Tribes

assessed thirty-two parcels of reservation and trust land, including seven waterways. The

monitoring sites are delineated above, and include freshwater streams, a lake, and estuary

waters. Several of the seven assessed water bodies have identifiable nonpoint source

pollution problems. Based on these findings, the Tribes plan to continue to use other

agencies data, along with their own evaluation methods and techniques. These

techniques include on-site monitoring devices, fish and wildlife surveys, public

comments and observations, and comparison of current conditions with the information

contained in the Oral History and Traditional Knowledge of the Tribes.

As the Tribal personnel gather data, the information will be entered into the Tribe’s GIS

database that tracks each body of water. As the Tribes gain land, or more data is

available, the Tribes will be able to compare individual reaches of a stream or estuary to

compare water quality. This information will help the Tribes establish management

practices and interventions to maximize the quality of the water and the health of the

ecosystem. The data will also facilitate tribal reporting of conditions and cooperation

with other regulatory bodies and stakeholders. Date is also summarized in annual Water

Quality Data Summaries.

As the Tribes gather data and compare that which they gather themselves with state and

federal data, it is essential to have a standard against which they can measure the water

quality. Indeed, many pollutants may occur rarely, if at all, in the tribal watersheds.

Moreover, the Tribes to date have not had the time or resources to promulgate extensive,

unique standards and some pollutants do not have absolute standards, but instead are

relative measures. To determine when beneficial uses are impaired and when water

quality crises exist, the Tribes will use a water quality matrix to make these decisions.

The matrices in Tables 4 and 5 include the standards as established by the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality.

Significantly, the standards elaborated below are a starting point for the Tribes and their

assessment activities. The EPA is in the process of revising many of its standards, as is

the State of Oregon. If state and EPA standards conflict, the Tribes use and adhere to

EPA standards. Therefore, the data and standards in Tables 4 and 5, is undergoing

review and the thresholds will be altered as the EPA promulgates its standards.

SEE APPENDIX A FOR STATE OF OREGON WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR T OXIC

POLLUTANTS

TABLE 4. SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROTECTIVE OF BENEFICIAL

USES IN TRIBAL WATERS

Parameter

Criteria

Beneficial Use

Fecal Coliform

Fecal coliform median of 14 organisms per 100 ml; no

more than 10% > 43 organisms per 100 ml

Shellfish growing

e.coli

Freshwaters and Estuarine Waters:

126 E. coli/100

ml (30-day log mean—minimum 5 samples)

406 E. coli/100 ml (no single sample can exceed the

criteria)

Water contact recreation

enterococcus

No more than 158 colony forming units (158 MPN) per 100

milliliters of marine water

Water contact recreation

Dissolved

Oxygen

ODEQ Spawning Standard: not less than 11 mg/l

ODEQ Cold Water Standard: not less than 8.0 mg/l

ODEQ Estuarine Standard: not less than 6.5 mg/l

Salmonid fish spawning,

Anadromous fish passage,

Salmonid fish rearing

Water

Temperature

salmon and trout rearing and

migration

Estuarine and Fresh Water: 6.5 - 8.5

Resident fish and aquatic

life, Salmonid fish rearing,

Salmonid fish spawning,

Anadromous fish passage

Nutrients

Total Phosphorus Indicator: 0.05 mg/l

Total Nitrate Indicator: 0.30 mg/l

Aesthetics

Turbidity

5 NTU Low Flow; 50 NTU High Flow

Aesthetics,

Resident fish and aquatic

life, Water Supply

Sedimentation

(tribes do not

measure current

criteria

The formation of appreciable bottom sludge deposits or the

formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious

to fish or other aquatic life and the impact to the beneficial

use of resident fish and aquatic life.

Resident fish and aquatic

life,

Salmonid fish rearing,

Salmonid fish spawning

Estuarine and Fresh Water: 18

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The objective of this assessment by the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua,

and Siuslaw Indians is to characterize impairments to the quality of Tribally held waters

as step towards remediating any sources on Tribally held lands of those impairments

while working with other landowners and managers in the watersheds to address water

quality impairments. The relatively young Environmental Program of the Confederated

Tribes, and the relatively small slivers of widely dispersed land holdings, lead to the

reliance on general observations of the factors present on Tribal holdings which may or

may not be contributing to water quality impairment, and lead to the reliance on

secondary sources of information regarding water quality in the watershed from sources

such as the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland State University, and

various watershed assessments. Evaluation and best professional judgment applied to the

physical and biological conditions of these slivers for the most part reflect the conditions

which dominate the portions of the watersheds in which the Tribal holdings are located,

or reflect the processes conditions in the larger watershed outside of the Tribal slivers,

justifying reliance on these secondary sources of information and evaluations based on

best professional judgment. Surface water quality and impairments, especially

impairments which adversely affect beneficial uses (especially salmonid production) are

the issues which drive water quality monitoring throughout most of the Oregon Coast.

Thus little or no attention has been paid to monitoring ground water quality in the vicinity

of Tribal holdings and, with the possible exception of the Munsel Lake, ground water

quality is unlikely to be an issue. Ultimately, assessing the water quality and nonpoint

sources of pollution in major coastal Oregon watersheds will be a collaborative effort

with each stakeholder contributing according to their ability and priorities.

3.1 REPORTING FORMAT

The assessment information in the tables below are broken down by watershed, subbasin, tract name, location, county, name of water body or stream, known pollution or

problem, extent of the problem, and source if known. In addition to water quality data,

the Tribes have worked to make use of biological data as well. Using resources from

NOAA Fisheries and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the tables below

include relevant data on threatened or endangered species and other species of concern.

3.2 WATERS IMPACTED BY NONPOINT SOURCES

3.2.1 COOS WATERSHED

The Coos Watershed has since time immemorial held great cultural significance for the

Tribes and provided for the Tribes’ subsistence. Among the sites held by the Tribes that

adjoin or are crossed by a waterway, the Coos watershed and in particular the Coos

Estuary contains four.

The Coos River headwaters in the Oregon Coast Range and flows into the Pacific Ocean

near Coos Bay, Oregon. Land use in the Coos Watershed varies as much as any estuary

in Oregon. Two cities, multiple communities, and the Oregon International Port of Coos

Bay are located on the Coos Estuary: these contribute a wide variety of nonpoint source

pollutants including automobile oil, refuse, sewage, and pesticides, much of this input

coming from storm-water runoff. Most of the watershed is devoted to forestry. Other

activities in the watershed include the fishing industry and other maritime commerce,

manufacturing, and ranching. According to the Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality, major nonpoint pollution issues include elevated temperature, turbidity and fecal

coliform levels, and depressed dissolved oxygen levels.

The water quality in several portions of the Coos Watershed is impaired or is of potential

concern, according to the ODEQ 303(d) list. Impairments in headwater tributaries

include elevated temperature and depressed dissolved oxygen, while impairments in the

estuary include fecal coliform. (Potential concerns include sedimentation and, near

industrial sites, synthetic hydrocarbons and heavy metals.)

The 2001 BLM South Fork Coos [River] Watershed Analysis states that removal of

vegetation along headwater tributaries, in particular the narrower tributaries, is the main

anthropogenic contributor to elevated steam temperatures under recent or current forest

management practices. The 2003 Oregon Department of Forestry Elliott State Forest

Watershed Analysis indicates that insufficient instream structure to retain bedload can

also contribute to elevated temperature as a result of the lost potential for water to cool as

it flows subsurface. Elevated temperature, along with elevated biological oxygen

demand, can contribute to depressed dissolved oxygen levels. Impairments in the estuary

and estuarine tributaries including Tribally held tracts include fecal coliform. The 2001

Lower Pony Creek Watershed Committee Watershed Assessment and Potential Action

Plan indicates wildlife and domestic animals as being the most likely primary nonpoint

source of fecal coliform in this lower Coos Estuary tributary, with septic systems being a

potential contributor. Sewage treatment pump station and plant discharges are point

sources are known to episodically affect Pony Creek and the mainstem of the estuary, but

such discharges would by considerably diluted before reaching any of the impaired Tribal

tracts. No additional formal watershed assessment have been completed which are

available and pertinent to the impairments of the Tribal tracts. Evaluation and best

professional judgment, including close familiarity with the Kentuck Slough and Coalbank

Slough watersheds, point in the direction of livestock as the primary source for fecal

coliform in these waterbodies, with wildlife also contributing and septic systems

potentially contributing. Tribal land uses of the Kentuck Slough Tract (undeveloped and

naturally vegetated) and the Coalbank Slough Tract (mostly saltmarsh with an old

television station built atop a small area of fill and surrounded by a naturally vegetated

dike) are unlikely to be contributing to the impairment by fecal coliform. Similarly, the

two other Tribal tracts bordering the estuary (but not along an impaired reach,) the

Empire Cemetery and Miluk Village (an undeveloped strip of land along the estuary) are

unlikely to be contributing to water quality impairments.

COOS BAY SONDE STATIONS & SAMPLE SITES

LOWER COOS SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA : WATER YEAR 2013

(Oct 2012 to Sept 2013)*

BLM Discrete Data Summary

BLM Grabs

Wet Season:

10/01/12 to

05/31/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

BLM Grabs

Dry Season:

06/01/13 to

09/30/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

11.15

11.08

8.30

14.79

38.67

39.30

28.05

48.90

24.61

24.98

17.17

31.92

97.60

97.90

91.10

101.00

9.23

9.22

8.10

10.56

7.83

7.84

7.72

7.92

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

14.34

13.53

15.15

47.51

46.25

48.77

30.92

29.97

31.86

106.05

104.30

107.80

8.98

8.63

9.32

7.95

7.87

8.03

BLM Continuous Data Summary

BLM Sonde

Wet Season:

10/01/12 to

05/31/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

BLM Sonde

Dry Season:

06/01/13 to

09/30/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

10.85

10.84

6.81

15.60

23321

40.87

41.95

10.35

51.62

23321

27.04

27.49

13.80

33.67

17861

99.01

98.77

55.90

124.70

23321

9.51

9.47

5.28

12.80

23321

7.93

7.97

6.98

8.23

23321

-1

781

22254

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

14.38

14.74

8.24

20.36

11709

47.84

49.16

0.99

52.18

8777

31.18

32.12

0.49

34.24

8777

93.16

92.31

38.53

149.32

10673

7.92

7.81

3.27

13.26

10673

7.83

7.82

7.39

8.32

8777

-1

933

9178

* Values in bold represent instances where aquatic life criteria is not met, but are generally considered to

be possible anomalies attributable to seasonal extremes (temp) or localized conditions (turbidity). **

Estuary habitat tends to have tidal (salinity/ temp) and open water characteristics (high temp/ low DO) that

are not comparable to mainstem and side channel water quality parameters.

BLM BOAT RAMP & E MPIRE DOCK BACTERIA DATA

The following tables list all bacteria data collected by our program for these sites during

water year 2013. Our program currently compares single grab samples to ODEQ and

EPA established numeric criteria for Freshwaters and Estuarine Waters of either 1) no

single sample exceeding 406 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters (406 MPN) or 2) The

federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendation of the safe standard for

Enterococcus to be no more than 158 colony forming units (158 MPN) per 100 milliliters

of marine water. Although there is a 303(d) listing for fecal coliform in waters pertaining

to the Tribes’ BLM & Empire Dock sonde stations and bacteria monitoring sites, no

exceedances for either E.coli or Enterococcus have been measured by our program at

both sites

COOS BAY: BLM & EMPIRE DOCK E.COLI DATA: WATER YEAR 2013

Coos - BLM E. coli

Sample Date MPN/100 ml

10/02/12

25.5

11/07/12

46.5

01/03/13

<10

01/31/13

10.0

03/06/13

<10

04/18/13

<10

05/15/13

<10

06/18/13

<10

08/15/13

<10

Coos - Empire Dock E. coli

Sample Date MPN/100 ml

10/02/12

20.0

11/07/12

20.5

01/03/13

<10

01/31/13

20.5

03/06/13

<10

04/18/13

<10

05/15/13

<10

16/18/13

<10

08/15/13

<10

COOS BAY: BLM & EMPIRE DOCK Enterococcus DATA: WATER YEAR 2013

Coos - Empire Dock

Enterococci

Coos - BLM Enterococci

Sample Date

10/02/12

11/07/12

01/03/13

01/31/13

03/06/13

04/18/13

05/15/13

06/18/13

08/15/13

MPN/100 ml

116.5

<10

Sample Date

10/02/12

11/07/12

01/03/13

01/31/13

03/06/13

04/18/13

05/15/13

16/18/13

08/15/13

MPN/100 ml

41.0

<10

10.0

<10

3.2.2 NORTH FORK SIUSLAW WATERSHED

The Siuslaw Watershed has since time immemorial held great cultural significance for

the Tribes and provided for the Tribes’ subsistence. The largest complex of Tribal

fishing weirs in Oregon is located in the Siuslaw Estuary near the Siuslaw village site at

the Confederated Tribes’ Hatch Tract just upstream of the mouth of the North Fork

Siuslaw River. After the reservation era, many members of all Tribes in the

Confederated Tribes gathered or settled at this traditional village site or across the North

Fork. This tract, as well as the Confederated Tribes’ Munsel Lake Tract, has been

Tribally held continuously from time immemorial to the present day.

The Siuslaw River headwaters in the Oregon Coast Range and flows into the Pacific

Ocean at Florence, Oregon. Land use in the Siuslaw Watershed is dominated by forestry,

with ranching, rural residences, and the City and Port of Florence also adding to the

landscape. According to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, major

nonpoint source pollution issues include elevated temperature and turbidity levels, and

depressed dissolved oxygen levels. The water quality in several portions of the Siuslaw

Watershed is impaired or is of potential concern, according to the ODEQ 303(d) list.

Impairments in headwater tributaries include elevated temperature, sedimentation, and

depressed dissolved oxygen, while impairments in the estuary include elevated

temperature, sedimentation, and depressed dissolved oxygen levels. Potential issues

include fecal coliform in the Estuary and River. The North Fork Siuslaw River is water

quality impaired for temperature (September 15 – May 31) and sedimentation from river

mile 0.4 (a point approximately halfway up the Hatch Tract,) and for summer

temperature from the mouth. The USFS 1994 North Fork Siuslaw River Watershed

Analysis indicate streambeds which have been scoured down to bedrock, and riparian

forests reduced for pastures and home sites, as being the primary contributors to elevated

stream temperatures. Two North Fork Siuslaw Tributaries – McLeod Creek and Drew

Creek – are included on the ODEQ 303(d) list: Drew Creek is impaired by sedimentation,

and McLeod Creek is impaired by both sedimentation and temperature.

Data on McLeod Creek and Drew Creek contained in the 2000 [USFS and BLM]

Interagency Restoration Framework for the Siuslaw River Basin (IRFSRB,) in particular

data available for McLeod Creek, may serve to illustrate the processes which are

affecting water quality downstream at the Confederated Tribes’ Hatch Tract. The

IRFSRB reports that four landslides have occurred in the headwaters of the Drew Creek

watershed in the reporting period. This document also reports that “The McLeod Creek

drainage has had numerous landslides, mostly related to road failures. The Tributary at

river mile 4.7 on McLeod Creek had 8 landslides … mostly related to road failure

between 1968 and 1972. The tributary at river mile 5.6 had only [sic] two landslides…”

Heavy sediment loads entering from a McLeod Creek tributary were reported to be

resulting in bank erosion. Bedrock remained the dominant substrate in the lower reach of

McLeod Creek, although “If any obstructions are present, such as fallen logs, gravels are

deposited.” McLeod Creek is representative of a vast number of coastal headwater

tributaries on the central and northern Oregon coast. Slope destabilization has resulted in

periodic pulses of sediment, notably fine sediment. These episodically large pulses of

sediment have contributed to bank destabilization, as has removal of riparian vegetation

by logging, grazing, and rural residential development. These processes have resulted in

both increased turbidity and channel instability. The loss of instream structure from

riparian logging and stream cleaning have also been a factor in increased turbidity and

channel instability through the loss of the instream structure functions of energy

dissipation and bedload storage. Temperature has increased as structure and thus bedload

has been lost and streams have been scoured down to heat reflecting bedrock. Finally,

potential structure has decreased and temperatures have increased as a consequence of a

decrease in riparian canopy. McLeod Creek shows signs of recovery, but the

legacy of past disturbances and the current disturbances of a channel equilibrating

continue to contribute impairments to the water quality miles downstream at the

Confederated Tribes’ Hatch Tract.

Located at the confluence of the North Fork Siuslaw and mainstem Siuslaw Estuary, the

waters of the Hatch Tract are subject to tidal inputs and mixing. Fecal coliform

originating in the mainstem Siuslaw River from nearby and distant upriver sources may

flow up the North Fork Siuslaw on flood tides. Flood tide waters with anthropogenically

elevated temperature and turbidity may also contribute to impairments at the Hatch Tract.

The mainstem Siuslaw River above river mile 5.7 is identified by ODEQ as being of

potential concern over elevated temperature in its tidal reach and is impaired by elevated

temperature in its upper reach; ODEQ reports insufficient data regarding sedimentation,

and seasonally lists the mainstem above river mile 5.7 as impaired for dissolved oxygen.

The 1998 USFS Lower Siuslaw Watershed Analysis (LSWA) identifies five lower

Siuslaw tributaries which exceed the seven-day average maximum temperature of 64° F

in 1996, only two of which are currently listed as water quality limited by ODEQ. The

relationship between shade in forested reaches and temperature is inconclusive, although

the essential absence of canopy cover along lower reaches of some tributaries is

considered to have the greatest potential to elevate temperature: channel aspect and

substrate are also considered to have effects on temperatures. The LSWA identifies

forest roads (inappropriately located or inadequately drained) as being a major issue and

contributor of sediment to the watershed. The LSWA identifies “known general impacts”

to lower Siuslaw tributaries as including roads, riparian grazing, riparian logging, splash

damming, stream cleaning, and a municipal water diversion.

The Hatch Tract, in addition to being a traditional village site, was the site of a bridge

crossing and a lumber mill during the middle 20th century. A mill pond which has

mostly filled in, and the former mill site underlain by densely compacted ground and

which is vegetated mostly with non-native species adapted to a disturbed and harsh

growing environment, dominate the wetland and riparian habitats respectively. A

significant saltmarsh fringes the southern half of the tract. Evaluation and best

professional judgment indicate that there is no input of sediment from this tract, and

opportunities to increase canopy are limited by topography and current and planned land

use. The North Fork Siuslaw County Road runs near the edge of the Hatch Tract along

the North Fork Siuslaw, thus eliminating most opportunity for riparian reforestation. The

Hatch Tract is the site of the Confederated Tribes Three Rivers Casino and Hotel, along

with administrative offices including the offices of the Tribal Police. Best management

practices such as straw bale check dams, filter cloth sediment fences, and swales were

incorporated into the site development and ongoing operations to prevent or minimize

discharges to a seasonal lake and to the North Fork and to assure compliance with the

EPA Construction General PermitAmbient groundwater monitoring has detected no

influence of development or operational activities at the downgradient monitoring well

adjacent to the North Fork Siuslaw River. Conservation of existing high quality wetland

(the millpond and saltmarsh) will be a priority in the eventual site development. Riparian

revegetation opportunities at this site will be balanced by the imperative of Tribal

economic self-sufficiency, however, it will also be a priority to retain ecologically or

culturally significant riparian vegetation (large trees and indigenous underbrush around

the millpond and on the river side of the road) in order to minimize solar exposure of the

North Fork and for other biological and cultural reasons.

The Emil and Grace Memorial Homestead on Misery Creek provides significant

spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon. Past agricultural practices have removed

significant riparian vegetation and reduced the associated bank stability. Temperature

data has not indicated an excedence of a seven-day average maximum of 64 degrees

Fahrenheit. Turbidity data has not been collected. However, simply form a habitat

perspective, riparian and instream habitat and water temperature and turbidity could be

improved through riparian revegetation, invasive species management, and instream large

wood placement.

COOS BAY SONDE STATIONS & SAMPLE SITES

NORTH FORK SIUSLAW CONTINUOUS/SONDE DATA ANALYSIS

The following table and graph displays sonde; temperature, conductivity, salinity,

dissolved oxygen, pH and turbidity data collected by the CTCLUSI water quality

monitoring program at this site. The graphs have been produced with the appropriate

ODEQ standards and/or 303(d) listing in an attempt to facilitate rapid visual

understanding of the trends occurring at the site. The data presented indicate that the

majority of continuous temperature data collected at CTCLUSI’s North Fork sonde

station throughout July and August exceeded the salmon and trout rearing and migration

beneficial use criteria of 18°C 7-day average maximum temperature and therefore

support the 303(d) listing for temperature within the North Fork Siuslaw River.

In addition to supporting the 303(d) listing for the site, dissolved oxygen data collected at

this site indicate an additional impairment to water quality is occurring in waters

pertaining to the site. Our ongoing analysis of the continuous data collected by our

program at the North Fork Siuslaw sonde station indicates that impairments to dissolved

oxygen similar to those listed for the Mainstem Siuslaw River are occurring within the

North Fork Siuslaw River

NORTH FORK SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA : WATER YEAR 2013

(Oct 2012 to Sept 2013)*

North Fork Discrete Data Summary

N.F. Grabs

Wet Season:

10/01/12 to

05/31/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

N.F. Grabs

Dry Season:

06/01/13 to

09/30/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen (%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

9.93

9.33

5.09

13.50

3.54

0.48

0.05

14.65

2.01

0.24

0.02

8.55

95.57

95.95

92.00

98.50

10.73

10.91

9.14

12.11

7.04

7.12

6.71

7.32

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen (%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

16.28

16.03

15.83

16.97

16.30

17.41

0.92

30.56

9.92

10.29

0.45

19.03

86.50

79.40

74.10

106.00

8.06

6.89

6.85

10.43

7.12

6.98

7.26

North Fork Continuous Data Summary

N.F. Sonde

Wet Season:

10/01/12 to

05/31/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

N.F. Sonde

Dry Season:

06/01/13 to

09/30/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen (%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

10.48

10.06

4.31

18.39

23320

8.26

1.85

0.05

46.39

23320

4.95

0.94

0.02

30.04

23320

96.21

96.66

57.57

120.84

23320

10.49

10.75

4.99

13.67

23320

7.11

7.02

6.36

8.28

21644

-1

958

23050

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen (%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

17.79

17.90

9.90

23.38

11707

22.81

23.98

0.09

47.82

10467

14.04

14.58

0.04

31.06

10467

86.36

87.23

19.20

154.40

10341

7.55

7.61

1.65

13.57

10341

7.40

7.37

6.71

8.36

7068

-1

529

6457

* Values in bold represent instances where aquatic life criteria is not met, but are generally considered to

be possible anomalies attributable to seasonal extremes (temp) or localized conditions (turbidity). **

Estuary habitat tends to have tidal (salinity/ temp) and open water characteristics (high temp/ low DO) that

are not comparable to mainstem and side channel water quality parameters.

NORTH FORK & C OX ISLAND DOCK BACTERIA DATA

The following tables list all bacteria data collected by our program for these sites during

water year 2013. Our program currently compares single grab samples to ODEQ and

EPA established numeric criteria for Freshwaters and Estuarine Waters of either 1) no

single sample exceeding 406 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters (406 MPN) or 2) The

federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendation of the safe standard for

Enterococcus to be no more than 158 colony forming units (158 MPN) per 100 milliliters

of marine water. Although there is a 303(d) listing for fecal coliform in waters pertaining

to the Tribes’ North Fork & Cox Island sonde stations and bacteria monitoring sitea, no

exceedances for either E.coli or Enterococcus have been measured by our program at

both sites.

SIUSLAW: NORTH FORK & COX ISLAND E.COLI DATA: WATER YEAR 2013

Siuslaw – North Fork E. coli

Siuslaw – Cox Island E. coli

Sample Date

10/18/12

12/06/12

01/17/13

02/13/13

03/21/13

04/25/13

06/12/13

08/08/13

09/24/13

Sample Date

10/18/13

12/06/12

01/17/13

02/13/13

03/21/13

04/25/13

06/12/13

08/08/13

09/24/13

MPN/100 ml

127.5

20.5

<10

20.5

221.5

35.5

36.0

<10

53.0

MPN/100 ml

193.0

46.5

<10

10.0

57.5

15.0

20.5

20.0

SIUSLAW: NORTH FORK & COX ISLAND Enterococcus DATA : WATER YEAR 2013

Siuslaw – N.F. Enterococci

Sample Date

10/18/12

12/06/12

01/17/13

02/13/13

03/21/13

04/25/13

06/12/13

08/08/13

09/24/13

Siuslaw – Cox Is. Enterococci.

MPN/100 ml

41.0

<10

20.0

Sample Date

10/18/13

12/06/12

01/17/13

02/13/13

03/21/13

04/25/13

06/12/13

08/08/13

09/24/13

MPN/100 ml

116.5

<10

SIUSLAW RIVER COX ISLAND (MAINSTEM ) CONTINUOUS/SONDE D ATA ANALYSIS

The following table displays sonde temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH,

salinity and turbidity data collected at this site. The graph has been produced with the

appropriate ODEQ dissolved oxygen standard listing in an attempt to facilitate rapid

visual understanding of the trends occurring at the site. The data presented in the graphs

and tables below indicate that nearly 50% of the continuous temperature data collected at

CTCLUSI’s Siuslaw River Mainstem sonde station throughout July and August exceeded

the salmon and trout rearing and migration beneficial use criteria of 18 C 7-day average

maximum temperature and therefore support the 303(d) listing for temperature within the

Siuslaw River Estuary and Mainstem.

In addition to supporting the 303(d) listing for temperature at the site, dissolved oxygen

data collected at the site by our program at the Mainstem Siuslaw sonde station support

the 303(d) listing for dissolved oxygen in waters pertaining to this site.

COX ISLAND SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA : WATER YEAR 2013

(Oct 2012 to Sept 2013)*

Cox Island Discrete Data Summary

C Island Grabs

Wet Season:

10/01/12 to

05/31/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

C Island Grabs

Dry Season:

06/01/13 to

09/30/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen (%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

9.66

9.46

4.27

13.39

2.85

1.07

0.05

12.50

1.62

0.58

0.02

7.24

97.17

98.60

89.00

99.80

11.02

11.18

8.94

12.80

7.35

6.79

7.93

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen (%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

17.86

17.58

16.81

19.20

17.58

21.81

3.81

27.12

10.66

13.15

2.13

16.69

82.10

77.00

76.20

93.10

7.32

6.82

6.64

8.50

7.14

7.16

7.01

7.26

Cox Island Continuous Data Summary

CIsland Sonde

Wet Season:

10/01/12 to

05/31/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

CIsland Sonde

Dry Season:

06/01/13 to

09/30/13

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Count

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen (%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

10.45

10.08

3.73

17.92

23320

8.61

2.80

0.04

48.08

23320

3.21

0.40

0.02

28.71

15545

100.28

100.50

43.40

123.30

18906

11.32

11.30

4.66

15.21

18906

7.25

7.17

6.31

8.67

22863

989

21044

Temp

(°C)

Sp.Cond.

(ms/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

Dissolved

Oxygen (%)

Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

17.87

18.15

9.67

23.77

11651

22.87

23.07

0.11

49.69

10474

15.35

15.03

0.91

32.30

8744

92.24

91.70

50.00

141.70

4244

8.67

8.49

2.70

13.39

4244

7.48

7.41

6.71

8.88

11268

933

8093

* Values in bold represent instances where aquatic life criteria is not met, but are generally considered to

be possible anomalies attributable to seasonal extremes (temp) or localized conditions (turbidity). **

Estuary habitat tends to have tidal (salinity/ temp) and open water characteristics (high temp/ low DO) that

are not comparable to mainstem and side channel water quality parameters.

3.2.3 SIXES WATERSHED

The Sixes River holding of the Tribes was included in the reservation recognized in the

Act which restored federal recognition to the Confederated Tribes in 1984. The Sixes

River headwaters in the Klamath Mountains and flows into the Pacific Ocean north of

Cape Blanco near Sixes, Oregon. The land uses in the watershed are dominated by

forestry, ranching, and rural residences. The water quality of the Sixes River and many

of its tributaries is listed by the ODEQ as impaired by elevated temperature, as is typical

of larger streams, especially in southern Oregon, where the streams are considered to be

naturally warm but still warmer than natural (for the most.) The 2001 South Coast

Watershed Council Sixes River Watershed Assessment indicates that a portion of the

Sixes River is rated as impaired with regard to nitrate, phosphate, and fecal coliform.

This assessment indicates that the Tribal holding is included in the lower of two heating

reaches of the river. This assessment also notes that dissolved oxygen impairment can be

associated with high temperatures and low flows; nitrate, phosphate, and fecal coliform

impairment can be associated with high stream discharge events, and these impairments

can also contribute to elevated biological oxygen demand and thus depressed dissolved

oxygen levels. Heavy metals associated with mining and sedimentation, are potential

concerns. Third party monitoring, and Tribal evaluation and best professional judgment,

including four years of work in Salmonid habitat restoration in the Sixes basin, point in

the direction of channel aggradations and widening, arising from elevated sediment input

from (mainly) past forestry activities into this already gravel-rich channel network,

combined with banks devegetated and destabilized by grazing, along with over-allocated

water withdrawals, as being the primary contributors to elevated summer temperatures.

Tribal land use of the Sixes River Tract (undeveloped and naturally vegetated) is unlikely

to be contributing greatly to the impairment by elevated temperature and depressed

dissolved oxygen, however, active management to encourage the development of mature

riparian canopy could contribute to the sheltering of this reach of the river from solar

input.

SIXES HOBO STATION & SAMPLE SITE

HWY 101

Sixes River

SIXES: SIXES RIVER BACTERIA DATA

The following tables list the bacteria data collected by our program for the site during

water year 2013. Our program currently compares single grab samples to ODEQ and

EPA established numeric criteria for Freshwaters and Estuarine Waters of either 1) no

single sample exceeding 406 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters (406 MPN) or 2) The

federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendation of the safe standard for

Enterococcus to be no more than 158 colony forming units (158 MPN) per 100 milliliters

of marine water. Although there is a 303(d) listing for fecal coliform in waters pertaining

to the Tribes’ sonde station and bacteria monitoring site, no exceedances for either E.coli

or Enterococcus have been measured by our program at the site.

SIXES: SIXES E.COLI & Enterococcus DATA: W ATER YEAR 2013

Sixes River – E.coli

Sample Date

07/04/13

Sixes River – Enterococci.

MPN/100 ml

<10

Sample Date

07/04/13

MPN/100 ml

<10

SIXES RIVER TEMPERATURE STUDY

CTCLUSI deploys an automated HOBO temperature data logger at this site during the

summer months. The HOBOs are used for long – term deployment and record the

temperature at the site at 30 minute intervals. The maximum temperature measured at the

Sixes River Site was 23.1 C. The 2013 summer and early fall 7 day maximum average

for temperature at this site exceeded the ODEQ summer/early fall water temperature

standard for salmon and trout rearing and migration (18 C), the designated fish use for

the section of the Sixes River monitored by the Tribes’ water quality monitoring program

(WQMP). This data confirm the ODEQ 303(d) temperature listing in waters pertaining to

the Tribes’ Sixes River monitoring site.

3.2.4 EFFECTS OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS

The tribal waters demonstrate the consistent presence of common problems. Because the

areas in which the tribal holdings are concentrated are similar, the commonality is not

surprising. The waters represent a consistent environmental suite and consequently, as

the Tribes add to their land base, the nonpoint source pollution problems are likely to be

similar. Thus, the impacts will be familiar and the measures required to mitigate and

restore water quality will be fairly consistent.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria:4 Fecal coliform bacteria are found in the intestines of warmblooded animals. Their presence in waters indicates that pathogenic organisms may also

be present. They are most commonly associated with failing septic tanks and drain fields

from individual sewage disposal systems, agricultural feedlots, and grazing animals.

Total Dissolved Oxygen:5 Dissolved oxygen analysis measures the amount of gaseous

oxygen (O2) dissolved in an aqueous solution. Oxygen gets into water by diffusion from

the surrounding air, by aeration (rapid movement), and as a waste product of

photosynthesis. Total dissolved gas concentrations in water should not exceed 110

percent. Concentrations above this level can be harmful to aquatic life. Fish in waters

containing excessive dissolved gases may suffer from "gas bubble disease"; however, this

is a very rare occurrence. The bubbles or emboli block the flow of blood through blood

vessels causing death. External bubbles (emphysema) can also occur and be seen on fins,

on skin and on other tissue. Aquatic invertebrates are also affected by gas bubble disease

but at levels higher than those lethal to fish.

Adequate dissolved oxygen is necessary for good water quality. Oxygen is a necessary

element to all forms of life. Natural stream purification processes require adequate

oxygen levels in order to provide for aerobic life forms. As dissolved oxygen levels in

water drop below 5.0 mg/l, aquatic life is put under stress. The lower the concentration of

dissolved oxygen in the water, the greater stress it puts on aquatic life. Oxygen levels that

remain below 1-2 mg/l for a few hours can result in large fish kills.

Sediment:6 Human activity, including tilling, irrigation, grazing, construction,

urbanization, and forestry practices, accelerates natural sediment production. Excess

sediment interferes with water treatment, irrigation, fish spawning and rearing, and the

production of fish food organisms in streams. Other pollutants, such as nutrients and

metals, may be absorbed on sediment particles and transported by them into and through

aquatic systems.

Temperature: Temperature pollution refers to high temperatures, which leads to

mortality in cold-water aquatic species, such as salmon and trout. Typically, temperature

problems arise when riparian habitat is degraded and denuded. The absence of shade,

especially trees, allows more sunlight to get to the stream and this heats the water.

Additionally, sedimentation and erosion, especially from concentrating the runoff period,

scours streams and eliminates deep pockets and pools that traditionally allow cold-water

aquatic species to find cover and cooler water in the heat of summer.

Additionally, temperature works with other variables to lessen or worsen their impact.

For example, “Another physical process that affects dissolved oxygen concentrations is

the relationship between water temperature and gas saturation. Cold water can hold more

of any gas, including oxygen, than warmer water. Warmer water becomes "saturated"

more easily with oxygen. As water becomes warmer, it can hold less and less. So, during

the summer months in the warmer top portion of a lake, the total amount of oxygen

present may be limited by temperature. If the water becomes too warm, even if 100%

saturated, O2 levels may be suboptimal for many species of trout.”7

3.3 FORMULATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The EPA September 1997 Tribal Nonpoint Source Planning Handbook states that “The

purpose of this section is to identify the established process for selecting best

management practices (BMPs) on the Tribal Lands.” The general process for the

development of BMPs for Tribal holdings is fairly uniform, although the details of the

process will vary with the particular holding. In general, the Tribal Administration will

draft BMPs based on research of pertinent existing local, county, state, federal, and other

Tribal BMPs and statutes. Through the Tribal newspaper and through Tribal Council

meetings, the Tribal Membership will be informed of the progress of BMP development

and will be encouraged to provide input. After this scoping and public comment period is

complete, the BMPs will be submitted in ordinance form to the Tribal Council. The

Confederated Tribes requires that proposed ordinances have a first reading and be subject

to comment for thirty days prior to a second reading and potential adoption at a Tribal

Council meeting. Pending Tribal Council approval, the BMPs will be adopted as Tribal

Ordinances.

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians have developed

BMPs for activities relevant to Tribal trust land The Tribes will continue to develop and

periodically review BMPs which will provide specific guidance to minimize adverse

effects on water quality by activities including ground disturbing activities and stormwater runoff associated with site development; riparian vegetation buffers in forested,

agricultural, residential, and commercial landscapes; and road construction and

maintenance activities.

Silvicultural BMPs associated with the proposed Tribal Forest will be required to be

consistent with the enabling legislation which leads to the enactment of the Tribal Forest.

Such BMPs will be developed in a process similar to Tribal Ordinances and will be

included in a Tribal Forest Resource Management Plan developed under the provisions of

the enabling legislation, the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, and

Bureau of Indian Affairs policies and procedures. This Plan will be developed with input

in a manner similar to the process for input on Tribal Ordinances. This Plan will be

drafted by Tribal and BIA staff with the assistance of USFS staff, and will be subject to

the provisions of NEPA. The Tribes have developed specific BMPs for silvicultural

activities as part of Trial Forest Resource Management Strategies for both restoration and

sustained yield forestry. A Tribal Forest Management Plan will be completed pending

the enactment of and as per the statutory provisions of legislation which will return

federal forest land to the Confederated Tribes.

There is a wide selection of excellent sources for BMPs for the Confederated Tribes to

consider as the Tribes’ BMPs are developed for the various types of Tribal land uses.

These sources, including referrals, include:

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS);

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);

NOAA Fisheries;

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE);

US Forest Service (USFS);

Bureau of Land Management (BLM);

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ);

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (OLCDC);

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB);

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA);

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF);

The proposed Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) State Programmatic

General Permit (SPGP).

Many of these agencies, directly or through local Watershed Associations, provide

technical and financial assistance for a variety of programs including nonpoint source

pollution control. Given the (currently) small and dispersed nature of Tribal holdings, the

Confederated Tribes have identified cooperation and coordination with these entities,

especially watershed associations, in addition to the development of our own Tribal

Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program, as the most promising path to

reversing impairments of Tribal water quality.

Categories of nonpoint sources of pollution identified by the EPA include agriculture;

forestry; hydromodification / habitat alteration; marinas / boating; roads, highways, and

bridges; urban environments, including low-impact development; and wetland / riparian

management. Of these categories, the following are the Tribal land uses which may

contribute to water quality impairments:

Forestry;

Roads;

Urban/low-impact development;

Wetland/riparian management;

As discussed above, current Tribal land uses are considered to have little or no actual or

potential adverse effect on water quality. And as discussed above, agriculture, forestry,

hydromodification, roads, and low-impact development are considered to be the primary

contributors throughout the watersheds to water quality impairment. The Tribal BMP

development process will prioritize those current or likely Tribal land uses which have

the potential to contribute to water quality impairments, such as site development and

forestry. The Tribal BMP development process will then prioritize those categories

which contribute to impairment of Tribal water quality but which are not currently found

on Tribal lands but which may in the future as land is acquired, such as agriculture.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians have struggled at

least as hard as any federally-recognized Tribe in Oregon to retain their identity, culture,

and sovereignty. Since restoration of federal recognition in 1984, the Confederated

Tribes have expended the Tribes’ scarce resources to meet the barest needs of the Tribal

Government and Membership. The Confederated Tribes have slowly, carefully, and

steadily built their administrative capacity with the goal of achieving self-governance and

economic self-sufficiency. To this end, in the late 1990’s, the Confederated Tribes

established the Tribes’ Environmental Program. In 2005, this program was expanded and

combined with other programs into the Department of Natural Resources. The focus of

the program to date has been to establish the basic government-to-government

relationship, to develop the basic internal framework for the program, and to develop a

Tribal water quality monitoring program. The Confederated Tribes have received EPA

approval of the Tribes’ Water Quality Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan and

plans to begin to implement Tribal water quality monitoring in January 2004.

The Tribal holdings consist of several small and widely dispersed tracts. Significant land

acquisition and development has occurred in the past five years, but there has been no

observed input of nonpoint (or point) source pollution into waters of or pertaining to the

reservation. Within the watersheds in which the Tribal holdings are located, water

quality is impaired by significant, widespread, and difficult to manage sources of

nonpoint source pollution, i.e. elevated levels of temperature, sediment, and fecal

coliform bacteria, and depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations. Forest and

agricultural practices are considered to be the primary categories of land uses

contributing to these impairments.

Funds have been secured and work plans have been adopted to develop ordinances and

BMPs addressing ground disturbing activities and storm-water runoff associated with site

development; riparian vegetation buffers in forested, agricultural, residential, and

commercial landscapes; road construction and maintenance activities; and silvicultural

activities. Given the extremely limited current land base, the Confederated Tribes have

had little or no opportunity until recently to potentially contribute nonpoint source

pollution, let alone mitigate such contributions, for the slivers of holdings. Rather, the

Confederated Tribes have engaged with other stakeholders in the Ancestral Watersheds,

primarily through Watershed Associations, to seek solutions to impairments of water

quality arising from Tribal and non-Tribally held lands and the consequent degradation of

other aquatic resources, particularly the culturally significant resources of salmon,

lamprey, and shellfish.

This Nonpoint Source Assessment Report will be used by the Confederated Tribes of

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians to build on the administrative and technical

capacity already established by the Confederated Tribes and the Tribes’ Department of

Natural Resources, and to build on the collaborative relationships between the Tribes and

other stakeholders in the Ancestral Watersheds, so as to continue to operate the Tribal

Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program which will integrate Tribal technical,

financial, and land resources with the technical expertise and stewardship commitment of

our partners in these watersheds and their Watershed Associations. This direction

provided by this report will guide and prioritize the development of ordinances and

BMPs for controlling Tribal nonpoint sources of pollution and to minimize and reverse

impairments of water quality from conditions on Tribal holdings. This Nonpoint Source

Pollution assessment will also be used as a tool in our collaboration with other

stakeholders to address nonpoint sources of pollution in the Ancestral Watersheds which

pertain to Tribal waters.

5.0 REFERENCES

“Fort Peck Reservation Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report,” available at the EPA

website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/fortpeck/fprnspar.html (.) The entire section is mostly a

direct quote from this source.

Ibid.

“EPA website: “Polluted Runoff, Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry,”

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts/point8.htm

“Fort Peck Reservation Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report,” available at the EPA

website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/fortpeck/fprnspar.html (.) The entire section is a direct

quote from this source.

The definition contained here comes from the Kentucky Water Watch website:

http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wwhomepg.htm Another source for the same information is

“Water on the Web” available at: http://wow.nrri.umn.edu/wow/under/parameters/oxygen.html

“Fort Peck Reservation Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report,” available at the EPA

website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/fortpeck/fprnspar.html (.) The entire section is a direct

quote from this source.

“Water on the Web” available at: http://wow.nrri.umn.edu/wow/under/parameters/oxygen.html

APPENDIX A

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

DIVISION 41

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS: BENEFICIAL USES, POLICIES, AND CRITERIA

FOR OREGON

340-041-0033

Toxic Substances

Page 1 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

TABLE 30: Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Toxic

Pollutants

Effective April 18, 2014

Aquatic Life Criteria Summary

The concentration for each compound listed in Table 30 is a criterion not to be exceeded in waters of

the state in order to protect aquatic life. The aquatic life criteria apply to waterbodies where the

protection of fish and aquatic life are the designated uses. All values are expressed as micrograms per

liter (µg/L). Compounds are listed in alphabetical order with the corresponding information: the

Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, whether there is a human health criterion for the pollutant

(i.e. “y”= yes, “n” = no), and the associated aquatic life freshwater and saltwater acute and chronic

criteria. Italicized pollutants are not identified as priority pollutants by EPA. Dashes in the table column

indicate that there is no aquatic life criterion.

Unless otherwise noted in the table below, the acute criterion is the Criterion Maximum

Concentration (CMC) applied as a one-hour average concentration, and the chronic criterion is

the Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) applied as a 96-hour (4 days) average

concentration. The CMC and CCC criteria should not be exceeded more than once every three

years. Footnote A, associated with eleven pesticide pollutants in Table 30, describes the

exception to the frequency and duration of the toxics criteria stated in this paragraph.

Table 30

Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Freshwater

(µg/L)

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Human

Health

Criterion

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

Aldrin

309002

1.3

Saltwater

(µg/L)

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

Alkalinity

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

20,000

Criterion shown is the minimum (i.e. CCC in water may not be below this value in order to protect aquatic life).

Page 2 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 30

Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Freshwater

(µg/L)

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Human

Health

Criterion

Ammonia

7664417

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

Saltwater

(µg/L)

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

Criteria are pH, temperature,

and salmonid or sensitive

coldwater species dependent-See document USEPA January

1985 (Fresh Water).

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

Ammonia criteria for saltwater

may depend on pH and

temperature. Values for

saltwater criteria (total

ammonia) can be calculated

from the tables specified in

Ambient Water Quality Criteria

for Ammonia (Saltwater)--1989

(EPA 440/5-88-004;

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swg

uidance/standards/criteria/curre

nt/index.cfm)

See expanded endnote M equations at bottom of Table 30 to calculate freshwater ammonia criteria

Arsenic

7440382

BHC Gamma

(Lindane)

Cadmium

150

C, D

Criterion is applied as total inorganic arsenic (i.e. arsenic (III) + arsenic (V)).

58899

0.95

0.08

0.16

7440439

See E

See C, F

8.8

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as “total recoverable” and is a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water

column. To calculate the criterion, use formula under expanded endnote E at bottom of Table 30.

C, D

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

340

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. To calculate the

criterion, use formula under expanded endnote F at bottom of Table 30.

Chlordane

57749

2.4

0.0043

0.09

0.004

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

Chloride

16887006

860,000

230,000

Chlorine

7782505

7.5

Page 3 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 30

Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Freshwater

(µg/L)

Saltwater

(µg/L)

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Human

Health

Criterion

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

Chlorpyrifos

2921882

0.083

0.041

0.011

0.0056

Chromium III

16065831

See C, F

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. To calculate the

criterion, use formula under expanded endnote F at bottom of Table 30.

Chromium VI

18540299

7440508

1100

See E

4.8

3.1

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

Cyanide

57125

DDT 4,4'

5.2

This criterion is expressed as µg free cyanide (CN)/L.

50293

1.1

A,G

0.001

A, G

0.13

A, G

0.001

A, G

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

This criterion applies to DDT and its metabolites (i.e. the total concentration of DDT and its metabolites should not exceed

this value).

Demeton

Dieldrin

8065483

60571

0.1

0.24

0.056

0.1

0.71

0.0019

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

Endosulfan

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as “total recoverable” and is a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water

column. To calculate the criterion, use formula under expanded endnote E at bottom of Table 30.

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

Copper

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

115297

0.22

A,H

0.056

A,H

0.034

A,H

0.0087

A, H

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

This value is based on the criterion published in Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Endosulfan (EPA 440/5-80-046) and

should be applied as the sum of alpha- and beta-endosulfan.

Endosulfan Alpha

959988

0.22

Page 4 of 20

0.056

0.034

0.0087

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 30

Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Freshwater

(µg/L)

CAS

Number

Pollutant

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

0.22

0.056

0.034

0.086

0.036

0.037

86500

76448

-0.52

0.01

0.0038

-A

0.0087

0.053

0.0023

Heptachlor

Epoxide

1024573

0.52

0.0038

0.053

0.0036

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

7439896

1000

Lead

7439921

See C , F

210

-C

8.1

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. To calculate the

criterion, use formula under expanded endnote F at bottom of Table 30.

Malathion

121755

0.1

Mercury (total)

7439976

2.4

0.012

2.1

0.025

Methoxychlor

72435

0.03

Mirex

2385855

0.001

Nickel

7440020

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

Iron (total)

0.01

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

Heptachlor

33213659

72208

Guthion

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

Endrin

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

See expanded endnote A at bottom of Table 30 for alternate frequency and duration of this criterion.

Endosulfan Beta

Human

Health

Criterion

Saltwater

(µg/L)

See C , F

0.001

8.2

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. To calculate the

criterion, use formula under expanded endnote F at bottom of Table 30.

Parathion

56382

0.065

0.013

Pentachlorophenol

87865

See H

7.9

Page 5 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 30

Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Freshwater

(µg/L)

CAS

Number

Pollutant

Human

Health

Criterion

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

Acute

Criterion

(CMC)

Chronic

Criterion

(CCC)

Freshwater aquatic life values for pentachlorophenol are expressed as a function of pH, and are calculated as follows:

CMC=(exp(1.005(pH)-4.869); CCC=exp(1.005(pH)-5.134).

Phosphorus

Elemental

7723140

Polychlorinated

Biphenyls (PCBs)

Saltwater

(µg/L)

Selenium

0.014

0.1

0.03

This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g. determined as Aroclors or congeners)

7782492

See C , L

4.6

290

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

The CMC=(1/[(f1/CMC1)+(f2/CMC2)]µg/L) * CF where f1 and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite

and selenate, respectively,and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 μg/L and 12.82 μg/L, respectively. See expanded endnote F for the

Conversion Factor (CF) for selenium.

Silver

7440224

See C , F

0.10

1.9

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

The freshwater acute criterion for this metal is expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. To calculate

the criterion, use formula under expanded endnote F at bottom of Table 30.

Sulfide Hydrogen

Sulfide

7783064

Toxaphene

8001352

0.73

0.0002

0.21

0.0002

Tributyltin (TBT)

688733

0.46

0.063

0.37

0.01

Zinc

7440666

See C , F

Criterion is expressed in terms of “dissolved” concentrations in the water column.

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. To calculate the

criterion, use formula under expanded endnote F at bottom of Table 30.

Page 6 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Expanded Endnotes A, E, F, M

Endnote A: Alternate Frequency and Duration for Certain Pesticides

This criterion is based on EPA recommendations issued in 1980 that were derived using

guidelines that differed from EPA's 1985 Guidelines which update minimum data requirements

and derivation procedures. The CMC may not be exceeded at any time and the CCC may not

be exceeded based on a 24-hour average. The CMC may be applied using a one hour

averaging period not to be exceeded more than once every three years, if the CMC values

given in Table 30 are divided by 2 to obtain a value that is more comparable to a CMC derived

using the 1985 Guidelines.

Endnote E: Equations for Hardness-Dependent Freshwater Metals Criteria for Cadmium

Acute and Copper Acute and Chronic Criteria

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as total recoverable with two significant

figures, and is a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. Criteria values for hardness

are calculated using the following formulas (CMC refers to the acute criterion; CCC refers to the

chronic criterion):

CMC = (exp(mA*[ln(hardness)] + bA))

CCC = (exp(mC*[ln(hardness)] + bC))

Chemical

Cadmium

1.128

-3.828

N/A

Copper

0.9422

-1.464

0.8545

-1.465

Endnote F: Equations for Hardness-Dependent Freshwater Metals Criteria and

Conversion Factor Table

The freshwater criterion for this metal is expressed as dissolved with two significant figures, and

is a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. Criteria values for hardness are calculated

using the following formulas (CMC refers to the acute criterion; CCC refers to the chronic

criterion):

CMC = (exp(mA*[ln(hardness)] + bA))*CF

CCC = (exp(mC*[ln(hardness)] + bC))*CF

Page 7 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

“CF” is the conversion factor used for converting a metal criterion expressed as the total

recoverable fraction in the water column to a criterion expressed as the dissolved fraction in

the water column.

Chemical

Cadmium

N/A

0.7409

-4.719

Chromium III

0.8190

3.7256

0.8190

0.6848

Lead

1.273

-1.460

1.273

-4.705

Nickel

0.8460

2.255

0.8460

0.0584

Silver

1.72

-6.59

Zinc

0.8473

0.884

0.8473

0.884

The conversion factors (CF) below must be used in the equations above for the hardnessdependent metals in order to convert total recoverable metals criteria to dissolved metals

criteria. For metals that are not hardness-dependent (i.e. arsenic, chromium VI, selenium, and

silver (chronic)), or are saltwater criteria, the criterion value associated with the metal in Table

30 already reflects a dissolved criterion based on its conversion factor below.

Page 8 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Conversion Factor (CF) Table for Dissolved Metals

Freshwater

Saltwater

Chemical

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Chronic

Arsenic

1.000

Cadmium

N/A

1.101672-[(ln

hardness)(0.041838)]

0.994

Chromium III

0.316

0.860

Chromium VI

0.982

0.962

0.993

Copper

N/A

0.83

Lead

1.46203-[(ln

hardness)(0.145712)]

1.46203-[(ln

hardness)(0.145712)]

0.951

Nickel

0.998

0.997

0.990

Selenium

0.996

0.922

0.998

Silver

0.85

Zinc

0.978

0.986

0.946

Endnote M: Equations for Freshwater Ammonia Calculations

Acute Criterion

The 1-hour average concentration of un-ionized ammonia (mg/L NH3) may not exceed more

often than once every three years on average, the numerical value given by:

CMCNH3 = 0.52/FT/FPH/2 where:

FT = temperature adjustment factor

FPH = pH adjustment factor

TCAP = temperature cap

FT = 10 0.03(20-TCAP);

FT = 10 0.03(20-T);

TCAP ≤ T ≤ 30˚ C

0 ≤ T ≤ TCAP

FPH = 1

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4-pH

1.25

8≤ pH ≤ 9

6.5 ≤ pH ≤ 8

TCAP = 20 ˚C; Salmonids and other sensitive coldwater species present

Page 9 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

TCAP = 25 ˚C; Salmonids and other sensitive coldwater species absent

Chronic Criterion

The 4-day average concentration of un-ionized ammonia (mg/L NH3) may not exceed more

often than once every three years on average, the average numerical value given by:

CCCNH3 = 0.80/FT/FPH/RATIO

where FT and FPH are as above for acute criterion and:

where 7.7 ≤ pH ≤ 9

RATIO = 16

RATIO = 24 x

107.7 – pH

1 + 10 7.4 - pH

where 6.5≤ pH ≤ 7.7

TCAP = 15 ˚C; Salmonids and other sensitive coldwater species present

TCAP = 20 ˚C; Salmonids and other sensitive coldwater species absent

Page 10 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

TABLE 31: Aquatic Life Water Quality Guidance Values for

Toxic Pollutants

Effective April 18, 2014

Water Quality Guidance Values Summary

The concentration for each compound listed in Table 31 is a guidance value that can be used in

application of Oregon’s Toxic Substances Narrative (340-041-0033(2)) to waters of the state in

order to protect aquatic life. All values are expressed as micrograms per liter (µg/L) except

where noted. Compounds are listed in alphabetical order with the corresponding EPA number

(from National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002, EPA-822-R-02-047), corresponding

Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, aquatic life freshwater acute and chronic guidance

values, and aquatic life saltwater acute and chronic guidance values.

Table 31

Aquatic Life Water Quality Guidance Values for Toxic Pollutants

Freshwater

Saltwater

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Chronic

Acenaphthene

83329

1,700

520

970

710

Acrolein

107028

Acrylonitrile

107131

7,550

2,600

Antimony

7440360

9,000

1,600

Benzene

71432

5,300

Benzidine

92875

2,500

Beryllium

7440417

130

19 B

BHC

(HexachlorocyclohexaneTechnical)

319868

100

0.34

Carbon Tetrachloride

56235

35,200

50,000

EPA No.

Chlorinated Benzenes

250

Page 11 of 20

5,100

700

5.3

160

129

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 31

Aquatic Life Water Quality Guidance Values for Toxic Pollutants

Freshwater

EPA No.

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Acute

Chlorinated naphthalenes

1,600

Chloroalkyl Ethers

238,000

Chronic

Saltwater

Acute

7.5

Chloroform

67663

28,900

1,240

Chlorophenol 2-

95578

4,380

2,000

Chlorophenol 4-

106489

Methyl-4-chlorophenol 3-

59507

Chromium (III)

16065831

109

DDE 4,4'-

72559

1,050

110

DDD 4,4'-

72548

0.06

3.6

Diazinon

333415

0.08

0.05

1,120

763

1,970

118,000

20,000

113,000

Dichlorobenzenes

Dichloroethane 1,2-

107062

Dichloroethylenes

29,700

10,300

11,600

224,000

Dichlorophenol 2,4-

120832

2,020

365

Dichloropropane 1,2-

78875

23,000

5,700

10,300

Dichloropropene 1,3-

542756

6,060

244

790

Dimethylphenol 2,4-

105679

2,120

330

230

590

38 pg/L

Dinitrotoluene

Chronic

3,040

370

Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)

1746016

0.01

Diphenylhydrazine 1,2-

122667

270

Ethylbenzene

100414

32,000

430

Fluoranthene

206440

3,980

12,000

6,400

Haloethers

360

Halomethanes

11,000

122

Hexachlorobutadiene

87683

9.3

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

77474

5.2

Hexachloroethane

67721

980

540

940

Isophorone

78591

117,000

Page 12 of 20

12,900

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 31

Aquatic Life Water Quality Guidance Values for Toxic Pollutants

Freshwater

Saltwater

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Naphthalene

91203

2,300

620

2,350

Nitrobenzene

98953

27,000

EPA No.

Nitrophenols

26 B

Nitrosamines

230

35576911

Pentachlorinated ethanes

Phenol

108952

Phthalate esters

6,680

150

5,850

7,240

1,100

390

10,200

2,560

5,800

940

2,944

Tetrachloroethylene

3.4

9,320

79345

Tetrachloroethanes

281

300

Tetrachlorinated Ethanes

Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-

4,850

3,300,000

Polynuclear Aromatic

Hydrocarbons

Chronic

2,400

9,020

840

10,200

9,320

127184

5,280

Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,5,6

450

440

Thallium

7440280

1,400

Toluene

108883

17,500

Trichlorinated ethanes

2,130

6,300

5,000

18,000

Trichloroethane 1,1,1-

71556

Trichloroethane 1,1,2-

79005

Trichloroethylene

79016

Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-

88062

31,200

9,400

45,000

21,900

2,000

970

The following chemicals/compounds/classes are of concern due to the potential for toxic effects

to aquatic organisms; however, no guidance values are designated. If these compounds are

identified in the waste stream, then a review of the scientific literature may be appropriate for

deriving guidance values.

 Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)

 Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB)

 Pharmaceuticals

Page 13 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

 Personal care products

 Alkyl Phenols

 Other chemicals with Toxic effects

Footnotes:

A Values in Table 31 are applicable to all basins.

B This number was assigned to the list of non-priority pollutants in National Recommended

Water Quality Criteria: 2002 (EPA-822-R-02-047).

Page 14 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

TABLE 40: Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic

Pollutants

Effective April 18, 2014

Human Health Criteria Summary

The concentration for each pollutant listed in Table 40 was derived to protect Oregonians from

potential adverse health impacts associated with long-term exposure to toxic substances

associated with consumption of fish, shellfish, and water. The “organism only” criteria are

established to protect fish and shellfish consumption and apply to waters of the state designated

for fishing. The “water + organism” criteria are established to protect the consumption of

drinking water, fish, and shellfish, and apply where both fishing and domestic water supply

(public and private) are designated uses. All criteria are expressed as micrograms per liter

(µg/L), unless otherwise noted. Pollutants are listed in alphabetical order. Additional information

includes the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, whether the criterion is based on

carcinogenic effects (can cause cancer in humans), and whether there is an aquatic life criterion

for the pollutant (i.e. “y”= yes, “n” = no). All the human health criteria were calculated using a

fish consumption rate of 175 grams per day unless otherwise noted. A fish consumption rate of

175 grams per day is approximately equal to 23 8-ounce fish meals per month. For pollutants

categorized as carcinogens, values represent a cancer risk of one additional case of cancer in

one million people (i.e. 10-6), unless otherwise noted. All metals criteria are for total metal

concentration, unless otherwise noted. Italicized pollutants represent non-priority pollutants. The

human health criteria revisions established by OAR 340-041-0033 and shown in Table 40 do

not become applicable for purposes of ORS chapter 468B or the federal Clean Water Act until

approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21 (4/27/2000).

Table 40

Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Human Health Criteria for the

Consumption of:

Carcinogen

Aquatic

Life

Criterion

Water + Organism

(µg/L)

Organism Only

(µg/L)

No.

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Acenaphthene

83329

Acrolein

107028

0.88

0.93

Page 15 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 40

Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Human Health Criteria for the

Consumption of:

Carcinogen

Aquatic

Life

Criterion

Water + Organism

(µg/L)

Organism Only

(µg/L)

No.

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Acrylonitrile

107131

0.018

0.025

Aldrin

309002

0.0000050

Anthracene

120127

2900

4000

Antimony

7440360

5.1

7440382

2.1

2.1(freshwater)

1.0 (saltwater)

Arsenic (inorganic)

The arsenic criteria are expressed as total inorganic arsenic. The “organism only” freshwater criterion is based on a risk level

-5

-4

of approximately 1 x 10 , and the “water + organism” criterion is based on a risk level of 1 x 10 .

Asbestos

1332214

7,000,000 fibers/L

The human health risks from asbestos are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed.

The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water

Act.

Barium

7440393

1000

The human health criterion for barium is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980

methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA

Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The

“water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Benzene

71432

0.44

1.4

Benzidine

92875

0.000018

0.000020

Benz(a)anthracene

56553

0.0013

0.0018

Benzo(a)pyrene

50328

0.0013

0.0018

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3,4

205992

0.0013

0.0018

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

207089

0.0013

0.0018

BHC Alpha

319846

0.00045

0.00049

BHC Beta

319857

0.0016

0.0017

BHC Gamma (Lindane)

58899

0.17

0.18

Bromoform

75252

3.3

Butylbenzyl Phthalate

85687

190

Carbon Tetrachloride

56235

0.10

0.16

Chlordane

57749

0.000081

Chlorobenzene

108907

160

Chlorodibromomethane

124481

0.31

1.3

Page 16 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 40

Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Human Health Criteria for the

Consumption of:

Carcinogen

Aquatic

Life

Criterion

Water + Organism

(µg/L)

Organism Only

(µg/L)

No.

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Chloroethyl Ether bis 2

111444

0.020

0.053

Chloroform

67663

260

1100

Chloroisopropyl Ether bis 2

108601

1200

6500

Chloromethyl ether, bis

542881

0.000024

0.000029

Chloronaphthalene 2

91587

150

160

Chlorophenol 2

95578

Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,D

TP)

93721

The Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,-TP) criterion is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which

predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also

published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only”

criterion was developed. The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established

under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Chlorophenoxy Herbicide

(2,4-D)

94757

100

The Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D) criterion is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates

the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the

1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was

developed. The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe

Drinking Water Act.

Chrysene

Copper

218019

0.0013

0.0018

7440508

1300

Human health risks from copper are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The

“water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Cyanide

57125

130

The cyanide criterion is expressed as total cyanide (CN)/L.

DDD 4,4'

72548

0.000031

DDE 4,4'

72559

0.000022

DDT 4,4'

50293

0.000022

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

53703

0.0013

0.0018

Dichlorobenzene(m) 1,3

541731

Dichlorobenzene(o) 1,2

95501

110

130

Dichlorobenzene(p) 1,4

106467

Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'

91941

0.0027

0.0028

Page 17 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 40

Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Human Health Criteria for the

Consumption of:

Carcinogen

Aquatic

Life

Criterion

Water + Organism

(µg/L)

Organism Only

(µg/L)

No.

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Dichlorobromomethane

75274

0.42

1.7

Dichloroethane 1,2

107062

0.35

3.7

Dichloroethylene 1,1

75354

230

710

Dichloroethylene trans 1,2

156605

120

1000

Dichlorophenol 2,4

120832

Dichloropropane 1,2

78875

0.38

1.5

Dichloropropene 1,3

542756

0.30

2.1

Dieldrin

60571

0.0000053

0.0000054

Diethyl Phthalate

84662

3800

4400

Dimethyl Phthalate

131113

84000

110000

Dimethylphenol 2,4

105679

Di-n-butyl Phthalate

84742

400

450

Dinitrophenol 2,4

51285

530

Dinitrophenols

25550587

530

Dinitrotoluene 2,4

121142

0.084

0.34

Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)

1746016

0.00000000051

Diphenylhydrazine 1,2

122667

0.014

0.020

Endosulfan Alpha

959988

8.5

8.9

Endosulfan Beta

33213659

8.5

8.9

Endosulfan Sulfate

1031078

8.5

8.9

Endrin

72208

0.024

Endrin Aldehyde

7421934

0.030

Ethylbenzene

100414

160

210

Ethylhexyl Phthalate bis 2

117817

0.20

0.22

Fluoranthene

206440

Fluorene

86737

390

530

Heptachlor

76448

0.0000079

Heptachlor Epoxide

1024573

0.0000039

Hexachlorobenzene

118741

0.000029

Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachlorocyclo-hexaneTechnical

87683

0.36

1.8

608731

0.0014

0.0015

Page 18 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 40

Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Human Health Criteria for the

Consumption of:

Carcinogen

Aquatic

Life

Criterion

Water + Organism

(µg/L)

Organism Only

(µg/L)

No.

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

77474

110

Hexachloroethane

67721

0.29

0.33

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

193395

0.0013

0.0018

Isophorone

78591

7439965

100

Manganese

The “fish consumption only” criterion for manganese applies only to salt water and is for total manganese. This EPA

recommended criterion predates the 1980 human health methodology and does not utilize the fish ingestion BCF calculation

method or a fish consumption rate.

Methoxychlor

72435

100

The human health criterion for methoxychlor is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the

1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the1986

EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed.

The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water

Act.

Methyl Bromide

74839

150

Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 2

534521

9.2

Methylene Chloride

75092

4.3

22967926

0.040 mg/kg

Methylmercury (mg/kg)

This value is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury. Contaminated fish and shellfish is the primary

human route of exposure to methylmercury.

Nickel

Nitrates

7440020

140

170

14797558

10000

The human health criterion for nitrates is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980

methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA

Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The

“water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Nitrobenzene

98953

Nitrosamines

35576911

0.00079

0.046

Nitrosodibutylamine, N

924163

0.0050

0.022

Nitrosodiethylamine, N

55185

0.00079

0.046

Nitrosodimethylamine, N

62759

0.00068

0.30

Nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N

621647

0.0046

0.051

Nitrosodiphenylamine, N

86306

0.55

0.60

Nitrosopyrrolidine, N

930552

0.016

3.4

Page 19 of 20

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Table 40

Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

Human Health Criteria for the

Consumption of:

Carcinogen

Aquatic

Life

Criterion

Water + Organism

(µg/L)

Organism Only

(µg/L)

No.

Pollutant

CAS

Number

Pentachlorobenzene

608935

0.15

Pentachlorophenol

87865

0.15

0.30

Phenol

108952

9400

86000

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

(PCBs)

0.0000064

This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g. determined as Aroclors or congeners).

Pyrene

129000

290

400

100

Selenium

7782492

120

420

101

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-

95943

0.11

102

Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2

79345

0.12

0.40

103

Tetrachloroethylene

127184

0.24

0.33

104

Thallium

7440280

0.043

0.047

105

Toluene

108883

720

1500

106

Toxaphene

8001352

0.000028

107

Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4

120821

6.4

7.0

108

Trichloroethane 1,1,2

79005

0.44

1.6

109

Trichloroethylene

79016

1.4

3.0

110

Trichlorophenol 2,4,6

88062

0.23

0.24

111

Trichlorophenol, 2, 4, 5-

95954

330

360

112

Vinyl Chloride

75014

0.023

0.24

113

Zinc

7440666

2100

2600

Page 20 of 20

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.