Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

January 2011

Office of Environmental Trust Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation PO Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Contents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 3

List of Tables and Figures 4

Overview 5

Introduction 6

Methodology 9

Land Use Summary 16

Surface and Ground Water Quality 21

Results 25

Discussion 31

Selection of Best Management Practices 35

Existing NPS Control Programs 40

Conclusions 42

References 45

Appendices 48

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACE Army Corps of Engineers BAER Burned Area Emergency Response BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BMP Best Management Practice BOR Bureau of Reclamation BPA Bonneville Power Administration CTCR Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation CWA Clean Water Act EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program ETD Environmental Trust Department FPA Forest Practices Act F&W Fish & Wildlife Department GAP General Assistance Program GIS Geographic Information System H/A History/Archeology Program HFRP Healthy Forests Reserve Program HPA Hydraulic Project Approval HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IRMP Integrated Resources Management Plan LRFEP Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPS Non-Point Source NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service OBMEP Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RIA Resource Inventory and Analysis RMU Resource Management Unit SE Standard Error STI Spokane Tribe of Indians TDG Total Dissolved Gas TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USGS United States Geological Survey WARSEM Washington Road Surface Erosion Model WDOE Washington Department of Ecology WDF&W Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program WMU Watershed Management Unit 3

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 List of Tables and Figures

Table I: Tribal water use expectations by water class, lake, and special resource 10 Table II: Goals for water quality monitoring 11 Table III: Land use by acres and percent (%) of reservation 16 Table IV: General soil characteristic by range and forest eco-regions 18 Table V: Potential and existing NPS pollutant sources on the Colville Reservation 23 Table VI: WMUs with documented exceedances in the Colville Reservation 26 Table VII: Ground water test wells with documented exceedances 30 Table VIII: BMP guidance by responsible agency and NPS category 38

Figure I: Location of the Colville Reservation within Washington State 7 Figure II: WMUs with documented exceedances in turbidity, Fecal coliform, or E. coli 8 Figure III: Stream monitoring site locations 9 Figure IV: Vegetative Cover by indicator plant species 17 Figure V: Soils distribution by range and forest eco-regions 18 Figure VI: Watershed Management Unit (WMU) boundaries 20 Figure VII: HUC 12 watershed boundaries 20 Figure VIII: Ground water test well locations 23 Figure IX: Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient 32

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Overview The Environmental Trust Department (ETD) has developed this report to assess Non- Point Source pollution on the Colville Reservation and to provide background information in order to update the Tribes’ NPS management program. Non-point source (NPS) pollution is water pollution that comes from many diffuse sources. As runoff from rainfall or snowmelt moves, it picks up and carries natural and human-made pollutants to streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, or ground waters. This assessment has four objectives: . Update the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation’s (CTCR) current NPS assessment from 1992. . Assess the current status of water quality and NPS pollution on the whole reservation. . To provide direction for ETD’s NPS control program. . Identify information gaps that may exist.

Reservation turbidity levels are a concern with 17 (of 59) monitored WMUs having average turbidity above a benchmark (6.45 NTU) that ETD considers the acceptable maximum. The Okanogan River also experiences turbidity levels above ETD’s level of concern. Bacterial contamination is also a concern with 16 of 59 monitored Watershed Management Units (WMUs) (25% of sampled WMUs) having exceedances of the tribal fecal coliform standard or an E. coli level of concern during this four year period. Road inventory work conducted by Environmental Trust indicates that significant sediment delivery from roads is occurring across the reservation (CTCR, 2010 A). Analysis shows that reservation turbidity levels are correlated with stream crossings. Additional study is needed to assess which crossing characteristics are responsible for increased turbidity. 68% of roads on the reservation are associated with silviculture. Despite showing a record of bacterial contamination, ETD has less data than needed to reveal the extent of contamination. Additional study is needed to differentiate contamination levels from the various potential sources such as ranching, wildlife, or septic systems. The following analysis attempts to give a thorough description of the reservation’s assessment methodologies, land cover and uses, soil, surface and ground waters, NPS concerns, NPS programs, and partnerships. Colville Reservation has a large land base and the assessment that follows is a reflection of that. This assessment identifies nine information gaps that need attention.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Introduction The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) is home to twelve aboriginal tribes located on, or relocated to the reservation by the Federal Government. President Ulysses Grant established the reservation (approximately two million acres) by executive order in 1872. Through a series of federal actions the reservation was moved and cut in size multiple times. In particular, the Federal Government opened the remaining reservation (1,449,268 acres) to non-native settlement via the General Allotment Act of 1887 in 1916. By 1956 (the end of “the allotment era”), the reservation was less than 650,000 acres. The federal government subsequently returned 800,000 acres to the CTCR in 1956 bringing reservation close to 1.4 million acres. Presently, the Tribes continue to purchase fee land back in hope of one day owning the entire reservation in trust (Solomon, 2010). Allotted and tribal trust owned lands remain on the “North Half” north of the Colville Reservation and in surrounding areas including the Moses Agreement Reservation area to the west of the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers. The Tribe also purchases land outside the reservation boundaries for various purposes. The majority of purchased fee land has been for the purpose of fish and wildlife enhancement. Over 5,000 tribal members live on the reservation, centered in the communities shown in Figure II. However, most reservation lands remain in Forestry and Rangeland Management. Surface waters and wildlife were historically, and still are, an important part of Tribal culture and life. The Natural Resource Department’s Holistic Goal refers heavily to the cultural significance of natural resources on the Reservation. The Tribes have incorporated several programs into their government to manage and conserve natural resources. The Colville Indian Reservation is located in north central Washington State. The reservation spans 1.4 million acres and is bounded to the east and south by the Columbia River and to the west by the Okanogan River. Its landscape includes part of the Columbia Plateau and Northern Rocky Mountain ecoregions. About 800,000 acres are forested. The remainder is range land or is farmed. A small percentage of the land base is covered with urban or industrial development. About 7,000 miles of road exist within the Reservation. Approximately 80% of the Reservation area is in trust status with remaining area being fee land (20%).

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Figure I: Location of the Colville Reservation within Washington State

The Environmental Trust Department (ETD) administers tribal water quality standards and carries out monitoring aimed at fulfilling Clean Water Act requirements. Specifically, ETD carries out monitoring programs at the whole watershed scale including water quality testing, stream structure assessments, road inventories, riparian functioning condition assessments, etc. The Fish and Wildlife Department (F&W) monitors surface water quality by salmonid health, fecundity, populations and habitat. Anadromous fish are very sensitive to disturbance and water quality and are good indicators of restoration efforts. The Resource Inventory and Analysis Department assists both programs with GIS and data organization/storage. For reservation surface waters, bacterial contamination is a concern with 16 of 59 monitored Watershed Management Units (WMUs) (25% of sampled WMUs) having exceedances of the tribal fecal coliform standard or an E. coli level of concern during this four year period. This is a particular concern for beneficial uses including water supply, food supply, traditional and cultural use, and recreation. For instance, active religious and ceremonial sites exist within (at least nine known sites) and downstream from WMUs with identified levels of concern in this report. Several potential sources of bacteria are present in most situations, including grazing/livestock management and wildlife. Septic systems are a potential source in several instances. A limited review of data on range units with affected streams reveals cattle numbers that could affect water quality, but further assessment is needed to be conclusive (CTCR, 2010A). Reservation turbidity levels are also a concern, with 17 (of 59) monitored WMUs having average turbidity above a benchmark (6.45 NTU) that ETD utilizes as a threshold level of concern. Turbidity affects most tribal beneficial uses, especially fish and shellfish, natural food chain maintenance, traditional and cultural use, and water supply. Potential sources of raised turbidity include roads, grazing/livestock management and forest practices. Storm water discharges from the road system in many cases are connected to the stream network. Such discharges are highly episodic and may not be captured well by the monitoring routine. Road inventory work and sediment delivery modeling conducted by 7

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 ETD indicates that fine sediment from roads is entering waterways across the reservation (CTCR, 2010 A).

Figure II: WMUs with documented exceedances* in turbidity, Fecal coliform or E. coli *exceedances may not be statistically significant

Considerable work has gone toward watershed restoration in recent years, particularly in regards to roads through stream crossing replacement, road decommissioning and cross drainage installation. The Tribes’ assessment goal is to accurately and fully identify sources, causes, and quantities of non-point source pollution occurring throughout the Colville Indian Reservation. With that information ETD will analyze the mechanisms involved so that we can develop a well-founded, effective, and feasible NPS control program. Our objectives for this report are: . Provide a comprehensive analysis of relevant and current NPS data . Identify waters, if any, that cannot be expected to attain or maintain Tribal water quality standards . Identify categories and sub-categories of NPS pollution present on the reservation . Describe how the Tribes will identify appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) . Describe Tribal, State, Federal and other programs that might be used to control NPS . Identify any information gaps in regards to NPS levels, sources and location

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 Methodology Years of Data Collection: The Tribes began conducting surface water quality in the 1980’s. Regular monitoring at designated stream sites began in the early 1990s and now consists of monthly monitoring at 77 sites, with samples drawn quarterly for additional lab analysis (See Figure III). Groundwater is sampled twice yearly from 30 wells located across the reservation. Waters of several lakes, wetlands and discharges from industrial facilities are also monitored.

Total Extent of Waters Assessed: Monitoring sites capture water quality data on 1,780 miles of Reservation streams. Another way to state this is 1,780 miles of streams are tributary to monitoring sites. 2,755 miles of stream exist on the Reservation (CTCR, 2010A), so monitoring for 65% of the total Reservation stream miles is occurring. [Note: southwestern end of map depicted in Figure III is misleading in that many of the streams displayed are intermittent or ephemeral; that is, there is little or no streamflow to monitor in much of this area.]

Figure III: Stream monitoring site locations

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 Spatial Analysis: In 1994 fifteen Resource Management Units (RMUs) comprised of over 200 WMUs were designated within the exterior boundaries of the reservation to facilitate integrated natural resource management. A geographic information system (GIS) is used to organize and analyze geospatial data supporting natural resource management on the reservation. ESRI ArcGIS software allows analysis of tribal, federal, and state data. Natural resource work is often conducted using Trimble GPS to combine accurate mapping and data collection.

Water Quality Standards: The Tribes has its own water quality standards, specified in Colville Tribal Code Chapter 4-8 (CTCR, 1985), and also promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations, 40CFR131.35. Table I details the uses that each water class is expected to maintain. The standards define beneficial uses for waters of the reservation, set water quality criteria supporting the beneficial uses, and generally require maintaining existing water quality levels that exceed the standards.

Table I. Tribal water use designations by water class, lake, and special resource Designated Use Class I Class II Class III Class IV Lake Special Resource Water supply (domestic, X X X X X industrial, agricultural) Commerce & navigation X X X X X Traditional & cultural use X X X Fish & shellfish X X X X Recreation X X X X X Stock watering X X X X X Wildlife habitat X X X X Fish migration X X X X X Natural food chain X maintenance

Water Quality Monitoring Goals: Goals of the water quality monitoring program are to assess whether water quality criteria are being met and beneficial uses are being supported in the waters of the reservation, establish a baseline of water quality condition for all waters, and identify changes in water quality (CTCR, 2001B). Monitoring is also conducted to evaluate water quality impacts from land use and management activities, identify and prioritize need for adaptive management and restoration, and assess performance of restoration treatments.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table II: Goals for water quality monitoring Program Area Goals (examples) Overall Water Quality Program 1. Assess whether water quality criteria are being met and beneficial uses are being supported for water bodies across the reservation (Overall Water Quality). 2. Establish a baseline of water quality condition for all waters and periodically reassess the baseline water quality to look for changes (Status and Trends).

Nonpoint Source Program 1. Identify waters needing restoration. 2. Determine the effectiveness of individual NPS projects in supporting beneficial uses. 3. Evaluate performance of BMP installation.

Water Quality Standards 1. Identify the reference condition for streams to use in the development of biological criteria. 2. Develop and refine water quality standards.

Sampling Design: The program focuses on streams with high priority or value for aquatic resources, fisheries (including anadromous fishery potential), and other uses. Monitoring occurs on streams that flow year-round or most of the year. Another focus is on water quality trends of tributaries to boundary waters. Continuous water quality and flow monitoring may be conducted on high priority streams, but has not been conducted recently. After five or more years of baseline data collection, assessments may be conclusive as to whether or not water quality standards are being met or satisfied in a given WMU. When results are less than conclusive, streams remain in the monitoring network to observe trends. Same-day measurement at different sites supports prediction of flows at some sites with high confidence based on flows measured at other sites. Sites are retained in networks that correlate well with other sites having poorer year-round accessibility. Sites monitored in previous years are on the potential list and may be rotated into active status in the future as other sites are dropped. Flow and other field measurements occur monthly. Water samples are collected quarterly for laboratory analysis. Lake water quality, where studied, is monitored on a monthly basis or as needed during summer and high use months. Compliance monitoring (industrial discharge) occurs two times per month or monthly at Colville Indian Precision Pine (CIPP). For most sites and years, monitoring begins the month of April and ends in the month of October. This seasonal schedule is due to many smaller streams freezing in winter, and access difficulties due to snow pack in winter and early spring.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Sampling Parameters: Streams, lakes, and wetlands are monitored from March/April to October. Wetlands are monitored on a rotation within RMUs. The following are the monitored water quality parameters: . . Stream flow Nitrate/nitrite (nutrients) . . Temperature Orthophosphate (nutrient) . . Turbidity Total and Fecal coliforms . Conductivity (pathogen) . . pH E. coli (pathogen) . . Dissolved oxygen Enterococci (pathogen) . Total Suspended Solids . Ammonia (nutrient) Monitoring occurs monthly except in the case of streams for certain parameters (total suspended solids, nutrients, pathogens) which are measured quarterly. Industrial discharge is monitored twice monthly for the following water quality parameters: . Temperature . Fecal coliform . Potassium . Turbidity . enterococci . Magnesium . Conductivity . Total coliform . Calcium . Total suspended . Fluoride . True color solids . Chloride . Hardness . pH . Sulfate . Chemical . Alkalinity . Lithium oxygen demand . Nitrate . Sodium . Zinc . Orthophosphate . Ammonia The following parameters have been rotated in/out of the routine analysis list for streams (e.g. some parameters will be included in analysis and others that show no detection will be excluded): . Color . Potassium . Alkalinity . Calcium . Hardness . Magnesium . Chloride . Sodium . Sulfate . Lithium . Metals (lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, zinc, copper, nickel, aluminum, selenium, silver, iron)

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Habitat, Wetlands, Macroinvertebrates: The Tribes developed a basic stream habitat assessment format in 2007 assessing stream habitat condition at water quality monitoring sites. Habitat condition assessments include consideration of the stream channel, vegetation, and adjacent land use. Assessment of wetland habitat condition includes identification and consideration of hydrogeomorphic class, hydrology, soil, vegetation, habitat features, and disturbance factors. In 2008, a wetland rapid assessment procedure was developed along with a geodatabase to organize and store data collected on wetland condition. Water quality monitoring at wetlands was also initiated. A limited amount of wetland condition data has been collected using the rapid assessment, by staff from the ETD, F&W, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)-Forestry, BIA-Land Operations (Range), and History/Archeology (H/A) programs. Initial monitoring of macroinvertebrates has begun by both ETD and F&W and work is occurring to develop a coordinated approach across the reservation. Very limited data and analysis is available at this time.

Reservation Water Assessments: Water quality data was assessed in 1996 and 1998 and impacted waters, impaired uses, impairment causes, and pollution sources were assessed in the Unified Watershed Assessment of the Clean Water Action Plan (CTCR, 1998). Analysis and 305(b) reporting was conducted in 2001 and 2006 (CTCR, 2001; CTCR, 2006). In 2006, Watson Engineering completed a study of water quality for the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers (Watson Engineering, 2006). Watson Engineering has also completed water availability and demand studies for all three San Poil River RMUs, the Buffalo Lake Swawilla RMU, Omak Creek RMU/Okanogan River adjacent lands (2007-2011). In 2010, data from 2006 through 2009 was analyzed and surface and groundwater assessment reports were written (CTCR, 2010A).

Data Organization and Storage: Monitoring data is stored in several databases designed by the Tribes’ Resource Inventory & Analysis Department (RIA). The wetland condition geodatabase is a separate database. The Tribes have begun entering water quality data into EPA’s STORET national database, a requirement accompanying EPA grant funding. Field work is conducted by water resource technicians in ETD. The majority of surface water measurements, including flow measurements, are collected on a monthly basis using flow and water quality meters. Surface water samples from these sites are collected for laboratory analysis on a quarterly basis. Industrial discharge compliance monitoring samples are collected bi-monthly.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

The surface and ground water monitoring program adheres to standards documented in a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 (Fulcrum, 2000). The QAPP provides project overview, describes collected parameters, and defines Quality Assurance/Quality Control activities that will be implemented as part of the Tribe’s groundwater and surface water monitoring activities. This Quality Assurance Project Plan has been prepared in substantial conformance with EPA guidance (EPA, 1998).

Watershed Analysis: Watershed analysis conducted during development of the Tribes’ Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) in the mid 1990’s utilized GIS capabilities (CTCR, 1996). The Omak Creek Watershed was the subject of a second assessment (CTCR, 1995). A new watershed monitoring process is being developed to assess watershed conditions at the sub-watershed scale to validate the Tribes’ IRMP, support adaptive resource management, and prioritize restoration (CTCR, 2001A). This monitoring program will assess stream channel, riparian, and upland soil and vegetation conditions, and watershed processes in select watersheds across the reservation.

Boundary Waters: The Okanogan and Columbia Rivers are not sampled for water quality standards by the Tribes. There are, however, several agencies involved in such sampling work including: Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDF&W), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Spokane Tribe of Indians (STI). WDOE has monitoring stations on the Columbia River and the Okanogan River that are sampled for a number of parameters on a monthly basis including those for which CTCR has set standards. For this report, we reviewed the data collected at the Malott station on the Okanogan and the Grand Coulee station on the Columbia for the years 2007 through 2009 (WDOE, 2010). We used the finalized data rather than the summaries provided by WDOE in order to ensure that the data was being compared using the same metrics as the rest of the reservation. As with the Surface Water Quality Report (CTCR, 2010) we determined if an exceedance existed by comparing the three-year means to the standards set in Tribal Codes. Additionally, the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program (LRFEP), a joint effort between BPA, STI, and WDF&W, has sampled water quality above Grand Coulee Dam since 1989. WDOE (2008) provides a detailed summary of LRFEP’s data for 1989 through 2007 and ETD has compared this data to CTCR water quality standards for a better understanding of water quality above Grand Coulee Dam. Certain water quality

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

parameters for the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers were also evaluated in a report by Watson Engineering (Watson Engineering, 2006). Both Okanogan and Columbia Rivers have persistent toxicity pollution derived from point sources. We will elaborate further on these issues in the discussion.

Three lake sites have been monitored since 1999. Sites previously monitored are on the potential list and may be rotated into active status in the future as other sites are dropped. Parameters measured for lake waters are bacteria (fecal coliform , E.coli, enterococci) to address recreational use concerns, and dissolved oxygen and nutrients upon request addressing aquatic resource concerns.

Fish Habitat: This report uses anadromous fish as an example for fish habitat, spawning, rearing, and migration needs because of their cultural and ecological values to the reservation. The Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program (OBMEP) is a collaborative effort between CTCR, WDOE, Environment Canada and a suite of other agencies or entities that can be viewed at the program website, www.CTCRobmep.com. Under OBMEP, CTCR has monitored anadromous salmonids in the Okanogan Basin since 2004 and has incorporated historic data/reports to generate data regarding salmonid presence and success. These reports are also available on the website.

Other Monitoring: Road maintenance inventories have been conducted for nine of 15 RMUs during the period from 2004 to present. The road inventory project uses global positioning (GPS) instruments to record information on road locations, stream crossings, road-related erosion, and road segments that deliver runoff and sediment to waterways. Inventories since 2007 have collected data allowing use of the Washington Road Surface Erosion Model (WARSEM) (Dubé et al, 2004). WARSEM is a tool that allows users to calculate average annual road surface erosion and sediment delivery to channels in a standardized manner. The model is intended for use on forest roads in Washington State, and can be applied on a variety of scales, ranging from a single road segment to all roads within a watershed or road planning unit. The analysis can be carried out at 4 different levels, depending upon the purpose of the analysis and the level of detail of data available for the roads. Related information comes from surveys such as range, habitat, and wetland condition assessments, road maintenance inventory, other studies, and from ongoing compliance monitoring records for forest practices and hydraulic projects. Personal observations and communication among resource management staff and the public on the reservation also inform ETD of areas where water resource impacts are

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

occurring. Staffs in ETD, F&W, BIA-Range, BIA-Forestry, Planning, H/A, and Fire Management programs work together frequently and all have some awareness of water quality issues. Water quality concerns are frequently identified through this venue.

Land Use Summary The Colville Indian Reservation is located in northeastern Washington. Just less than 1.4 million acres, the reservation is bounded to the east and south by the Columbia River and to the west by the Okanogan River. About 800,000 acres are forested and the remainder is rangeland or farmed (See Figure IV). CTCR has nearly 3000 miles of streams and 420 lakes, around 300 of which are clustered kettle lakes in the Southwest Plateau and are not able to support fish (See Figure VII for Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 12 watersheds) (CTCR, 1996). A small percentage of the land base is covered with residential development (See Table III). Most of the road acreage shown in Table III is found in commercial forestland; residential is a minor contributor, as is range.

Table III: Land use by acres and percent (%) of reservation Land Use Acres (ac) % of Reservation Agriculture 25,500 1.80 Forest – Commercial 673,025 47.32 Forest – Non-productive 128,348 9.02 Forest – Non-operable 92,852 6.53 Forest - Wilderness 8,397 0.59 Rangeland 455,276 32.01 Residential 1,195 0.08 Surface Waters 7,672 0.54 Roads 30,000 2.11 Total 1,422,265 100.0

Figure IV clearly delineates the reservation’s forested region which is a crucial component of the economy for its residents. Range management occurs throughout the reservation with ranges units covering the plateau regions as well as forested lands. Non- rangeland agriculture mostly takes place in the Okanogan County portion of the reservation and on fee land. The major crops are: orchards, irrigated hay land, dry land wheat-fallow (in the southwest), and, to a lesser degree, corn (Keller, personal communication). Other than rock, sand, and gravel extraction areas and a few rock crushing operations, there has been no mining or mine exploration activity on the Colville Reservation since the early 1990’s.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Figure IV: Vegetative Cover by indicator plant species* *See Appendix A for species’ Latin and common names

The landscape includes part of the Columbia Plateau- and Northern Rocky Mountain ecoregions as clearly shown in by the indicator plant distribution in Figure IV. Both ecoregions’ geology and soils are influenced by glacial and volcanic activity, with more recent contributions from wind blown and alluvial action. In addition to reshaping the mountains and river valleys, glacial activity left behind moraines, eskers, kettle lakes (389 on the Southwest Plateau), as well as new parent materials: glacial till, glacial outwash and glaciolacustrine sediments. Volcanic activity since the Cordilleran Ice Sheet receded has deposited a mantle of fertile and highly erodible volcanic ash in the mountains. Loess plays a minor but ubiquitous role in reservation soils and alluvium has developed along the Columbia and Okanogan rivers (CTCR, 1996; NRCS 2002). Figure VII and Table IV illustrate the distribution and general characteristics of reservation soils (General Soil Map, 1991; NRCS, 2002).

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Figure V: Soils distribution by range and forest ecoregions

Table IV: General soil characteristic by range and forest ecoregions Range and Parent Material Texture Slope Mean Drainage Forest Soils Rainfall Range Soils Glacial outwash Gravelly or loamy 0-65% 12” Excessively well drained on Terraces Loess fine sand to ashy, Slow to rapid runoff and Dunes Volcanic ash sandy silt loam Moderate to very rapid permeability, hardpan* present

Range Glacial till Stony, sandy loam, 0-75% 13” Well drained Soils on Loess can be ashy Medium to rapid runoff Glaciated Gneiss Slow to moderately rapid permeability, Hills and Volcanic ash hardpan present Basalt Plateaus Granitic rock Volcanic rock Glaciolacustrine sediments Range Soils Granitic rock Gravelly or ashy, 3-85% 15” Well drained on Non- Volcanic ash sandy loam Slow to very rapid runoff Glaciated Loess Moderate permeability Hills

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table IV Continued Range and Parent Material Texture Slope Mean Drainage Forest Soils Rainfall Forest Soils Glacial outwash Ashy loam to 0-60% 20” Moderate to somewhat excessively on Terraces Loess Gravelly silt loam well drained Volcanic ash Slow to rapid runoff Glaciolacustrine Moderately slow to very rapid sediments permeability Alluvium Forest Soils Granitic rock Ashy or silty loam, 5-65% 20” Well drained on Glaciated Loess can be very stony Slow to very rapid runoff Hills and Volcanic ash Moderate to rapid permeability, hardpan Mountains Glacial till present Alluvium Shaly rocks Metamorphic rock Volcanic rock Rhyodacite Andesite Forest Soils Granitic rock Gravelly or 5-65% 23” Well drained on Non- Loess Ashy silt loam, can Slow to very rapid runoff Glaciated Volcanic ash be shaly Moderate to moderately rapid Hills and Shaly rocks permeability Rhydacite and Mountains quartzite latite Metamorphic rock Sedimentary and metasedimentary rock Forest Soils Volcanic ash Ashy silt loam 0-65% 31” Well drained on High Glacial till Slow to very rapid runoff Mountains Granitic rock Moderate permeability, hardpan present

As mentioned in the Methodology section, fifteen RMUs comprised of over 200 WMUs are designated within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. Please note that the tribally designated WMUs in Figure VI differ from the HUC 12 units in Figure VII. The Tribes conduct much of their natural resource management organized on a WMU basis. This assessment and future planning will be based on these. However, for a more detailed comparison between HUC 12 units and WMUs, please see Appendix B.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Figure VI: Watershed Management Unit (WMU) boundaries

Figure VII: HUC 12 watershed boundaries

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 Surface and Ground Water Quality Summary Historical Perspective: The fisheries, streams, and riparian conditions on the reservation were historically stable and provided substantial sustenance, cultural, and spiritual values to the Colville Tribes with relatively balanced water and nutrient cycles. The riparian and in-stream conditions provided abundant and adequate habitat for fish, mammals, birds, insects, and other biota. The influence of fire had high increases in nutrients for short periods of time locally. In hardwood dominated riparian areas, vegetation change near streams was probably very mosaic. Coniferous dominated riparian areas probably were more stable and constant for longer periods of time. Riparian areas, in general, had greater bank stability, better vegetative cover, more stable flow regimes and supported a larger, more widely distributed abundance of wildlife (CTCR, 1996).

Tribal Water Use: The Tribes’ ground and surface waters are valued and important resources for the Reservation. Much of the residential community relies on near-surface ground water resources for consumption (CTCR, 2010 B). Surface waters have always had, and continue to possess, significant cultural and traditional values as well as more utilitarian and recreational purposes. All surface waters within the Reservation have water class designations which dictate the level of water quality that each water body must meet. The Tribes’ Water Quality Standards code (CTCR, 1985) prescribes the water uses each water class should support (See Table I). Many Tribal members continue to live, at least partially, a subsistence lifestyle – hunting, fishing and gathering food. Currently, CTCR is participating in the EPA’s Upper Columbia River Resources Survey. This survey entails food consumption and natural resource use by Tribal Members, however, results will not be available until 2012.

Surface Water: The Colville Reservation has approximately 2,755 miles of streams and 420 lakes. Reservation streams have been organized by WMU and all previous data have been collected on that scale. Please see Appendix B for stream length, watershed size and flow data. The majority of lakes are in the Southwest Plateau RMU. Most are unnamed and highly saline. 175 lakes on the reservation are five acres or greater in size (Wolcott, 1964). In the past and presently, only a few lakes have been the focus of water quality assessment. Further study and stronger collaboration among resource programs and agencies will yield a more thorough/current inventory and assessment of Reservation lakes. For a sample of available lake data please see Appendix C. The Reservation is bounded on three sides by water, to the east and south by the Columbia River and to the west by the Okanogan River.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

In 1998, CTCR submitted to EPA a Unified Watershed Assessment Clean Water Action Plan. The assessment was the first step to taking an interdisciplinary, whole-watershed scale approach to water quality protection on the reservation. Using the resources listed in Appendix D, the report described existing water quality status of major lakes and streams. Most accessed data were gathered between 1992 and 1995 although some sampling data began as early as 1986 (CTCR, 1998). Please see Table V for a list of NPS threats to surface water quality by category and sub-category.

Ground Water: Aquifers within the Reservation can be broadly grouped into unconsolidated sediment and bedrock. Bedrock consists of granite, diorite, granodiorite, and some volcanic rocks with much of the eastern portion of the reservation containing meta-sediments including quartzites and slates. The unconsolidated sediment aquifers consist mainly of glacial and catastrophic flood deposited sediments in the eastern and central parts of the Reservation (Inchelium and Nespelem areas) and glacial/alluvial deposited sediments in the western part of the Reservation (Okanogan River valley). Sediment aquifer thickness can range up to 700 feet near Inchelium and average 120 feet in the Okanogan River valley. Higher water yields are generally obtained from the sediment aquifers while the bedrock units are poor sources of groundwater, although additional study may identify higher-yield bedrock aquifers. Most of the water-bearing stratum that serve wells on the Reservation are shallow unconfined alluvial aquifers and susceptible to contamination from land use activities. It is critical to the long-term security and quality of life that groundwater resources be better understood and protected (CTCR, 2010 B). In February 2000 a permanent groundwater quality monitoring network of thirty (30) wells located reservation wide was established as part of the Tribes’ ongoing water quality management program. Until this time groundwater investigations were random and essentially performed for special studies or domestic wells on request. Residents of the Reservation are largely dependent upon near-surface groundwater for their drinking water, and the network was designed to include public supply well, domestic, and other wells where groundwater contamination from land use activities and identified potential pollution sources is a perceived risk or concern. Criteria for selection and the network design are described in detail in the Colville Indian Reservation Groundwater Monitoring Plan (CTCR, 2010 B). Please see Table V for a list of NPS threats to ground water quality by category and sub-category.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Figure VIII: Ground water test well locations

Table V: Potential and existing NPS pollutant sources on the Colville Reservation NPS Pollutant Source Category NPS Pollutant Source Potential Pollutants or Water Type Sub‐Category Impacts Threatened Agriculture Rangeland management Nutrients Surface water Pathogens Ground water 2010 Activity: Soil compaction Cattle Erosion 40 Active Range Units Riparian vegetation loss 71,713 Animal unit months Sedimentation Tillage levels unknown Concentrated livestock Nutrients Surface water Fertilizer use unknown Pathogens Ground water Pesticide use unknown Soil compaction Erosion Riparian vegetation loss Pesticides Fertilizer Sedimentation Pasture/cropland Nutrients Surface water Pesticides Ground water Fertilizer Erosion Sedimentation Riparian vegetation loss Soil compaction

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table V: Continued NPS Pollutant Source Category NPS Pollutant Source Potential Pollutants or Water Type Sub‐Category Impacts Threatened Silviculture Timber harvesting Soil compaction Surface water Pesticides 2010 Activity: Erosion 10,198 Acres of timber harvest Sedimentation 1,275 acres of site preparation Riparian vegetation loss 428 acres of broadcast aaaaiiii Reforestation practices Ground water alteration Surface water I ‘ prescribed fire Stream flow alteration Ground water 3.35 miles of fire trail Riparian vegetation loss

160 acres of aerial chemical --- Runoff intensity --- application Erosion Sedimentation Residue management Nutrients Surface water Riparian vegetation loss Erosion Construction Land Development Soil compaction Surface water Erosion Ground water 2010 Activity: Sedimentation 8 Mobile homes Ground water alteration 1 Single-family home 20 Pickers’ cabins Hydrologic/habitat Channelization Habitat loss Surface water modifications Stream bank destabilization Riparian vegetation loss 2010 Activity: Erosion 31 HPA permits approved Stream flow alteration 14 Stream crossing installation Temperature -- or reconstruction Riparian vegetation removal Dissolved oxygen depletion Surface water Erosion Sedimentation Temperature Stream bank modification Stream bank destabilization Surface water Riparian vegetation loss Erosion Sedimentation Wetland draining/filling Ground water alteration Surface water Stream flow alteration Ground water Riparian vegetation loss Nutrients Pathogens Erosion Sedimentation Temperature Structure installation (docks, Soil compaction Surface water bridges, culverts) Erosion Sedimentation Stream bank destabilization Riparian vegetation loss Resource Extraction/ Surface mining Ground water alteration Surface water Exploration/Development Metals Ground water Conductivity 2010 Activity: Soil Compaction 13 Gravel pits >.5ac Erosion Mining Ground water alteration Ground water Metals Surface water Conductivity Erosion

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table V: Continued NPS Pollutant Source Category NPS Pollutant Source Potential Pollutants or Water Type Sub‐Category Impacts Threatened Roads Road/highway construction and Soil compaction Surface water maintenance Erosion 2010 Activity*: Sedimentation 31.9 miles of road ------construction/reconstruction Bridge/culvert installation Soil compaction Surface water Erosion 2.27 miles of road ------Sedimentation - abandonment Stream bank destabilization Some sand and de-icer used Riparian vegetation loss Vehicle traffic level unknown Winter sand/de-icer Sedimentation Surface water Conductivity Ground water

Vehicle Residue Brake dust Surface water Oil/gas/antifreeze residue Ground water Tire Rubber

*Linked to Silviculture Metals Toxins Water Flow Regulation Flow regulation/modification/water Habitat Alteration Surface Water withdrawal Stream bank destabilization 2010 Activity: Riparian vegetation loss 18 temporary use------Temperature permits approved for Nutrients 31,019,000 gallon Erosion Beaver Removal Habitat Alteration Surface Water Stream ban destabilization Sedimentation Erosion Other Abandoned property/structures - Metals Surface water landfills/illegal dumps - hazardous Pathogens Ground water 2010 Activity: waste releases Nutrients Toxins Septic system data unknown Mal- or nonfunctioning septic Pathogens Surface water Litter levels unknown systems Nutrients Ground water Litter Nutrients Surface water Metals Toxins

Results Surface Water Quality: Given the number of water resources on the Reservation (see Appendices B and C) this report focuses on WMUs with known exceedances in fecal coliform and levels of concern for turbidity and E. coli. Levels of concern (rather than exceedances) are identified for the latter two parameters because ambient monitoring does not allow determination of exceedance for turbidity, and no tribal standard has been established for E. coli at this time. Fecal coliform is the only parameter tested by the Tribes that has presented levels above Tribal standards (Table VI) (CTCR, 2010 A). Not all of the fecal coliform exceedances are statistically significant given limited numbers of samples collected. Tribal standards require that less than 10% of samples for Fecal coliform exceed 200 organisms per 100 ml.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

To establish a level of concern, mean measured turbidity levels were compared against a criteria value of 6.45 NTU. The value 6.45 was chosen by adding 5 NTU (increase above background, from the tribal standard) to 1.45 NTU, the 25th percentile reference condition for streams in the Columbia Plateau ecoregion (EPA, 2000). Measured E. coli levels were compared against the criteria for E. coli currently in draft updated tribal water quality standards. Concern severity is based on consideration of the parameter mean value measured compared to the standard, and percentage of concerning values or exceedances given the total times sampled.

Table VI: WMUs with documented exceedances, or levels of concern, on the Colville Reservation WMU Stream Miles (mi) Concern Probable Sources Severity Barnaby Creek 10.6 Fecal coliform Range Low Wildlife Septic systems Buffalo Creek 12.9 Fecal coliform Range High Turbidity Wildlife Moderate Roads Cornstalk Creek 9.5 Turbidity Unknown Low Coyote Creek #1 3.4 Fecal coliform Range Low E. coli Wildlife Low Turbidity Roads High Falls Creek 15.9 Fecal coliform Range Low E. coli Wildlife Low Haden Creek 11.7 Fecal coliform Range Low Concentrated livestock Septic systems Kartar Creek 35.5 Turbidity Roads Moderate Lower Hall Creek 47.6 Fecal coliform Range Low E. coli Wildlife Low Turbidity Septic systems Low Lower Little Nespelem River 18.6 Fecal coliform Range Low Turbidity Concentrated livestock Moderate Lower Lost Creek 11.9 Fecal coliform Range Low Turbidity Roads Low Lower Lynx Creek 12.9 Fecal coliform Range Moderate E. coli Wildlife Low Turbidity Concentrated livestock Moderate Septic systems Lower Nespelem River 56.1 Fecal coliform Range Low Turbidity Wildlife Low Concentrated livestock Septic systems Lower Nine Mile Creek 25.9 Fecal coliform Range Low Wildlife Lower Omak Creek 76.8 Fecal coliform Range Low Turbidity Concentrated livestock High Septic systems Roads Lower Wilmont Creek 20.4 Turbidity Unknown Low Middle Nine Mile Creek 19.0 Turbidity Unknown Low

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table VI: Continued WMU Stream Miles (mi) Concern Probable Sources Severity Mill Creek #1 12.2 Fecal coliform Range Moderate Wildlife Nason Creek 26.8 Turbidity Roads Moderate Nez Perce Creek 34.3 Fecal coliform Range Low E. coli Septic systems Low Poker Joe Springs 16.9 Turbidity Unknown Low Rebecca Lake 3.7 Turbidity Range Moderate Dam break sediment Stapaloop Creek 39.35 E. coli Unknown Low Trail Creek 11.6 Turbidity Roads Trail Upper Nespelem River 20.2 Fecal coliform Range Low Wildlife Concentrated livestock Septic systems Upper Omak Creek 50.3 Fecal coliform Range Low Turbidity Concentrated livestock Moderate Septic systems Roads Upper San Poil River 42.4 Fecal coliform Range Low Turbidity Wildlife Low Septic systems Roads

Roads Analysis: Ground disturbance from harvest practices and cattle grazing and stream degradation can correlate directly to road density (CTCR, 1996). As such, the IRMP Record of Decision (CTCR, 2001A) has promulgated road density standards: within each WMU, open road density is not to exceed 1.5 mi/mi2 and total road density is not to exceed 4.0 mi/mi2. However, for 44 WMUs considered particularly sensitive, total road densities should not exceed 3.0 mi/mi2. Appendix D is a summary for all WMUs that have been surveyed to date, including open road and total road densities and the number of stream crossings. The road length hydrologically connected to surface water via ditches, stream crossings, and surface runoff can be significant sources of erosion and water quality degradation. The starred WMUs are those considered to have the highest sensitivity and therefore subject to stricter total road density requirements. Bolded densities are those that meet required standards. Of the 124 WMUs that have been surveyed thus far, only 18 meet all road density standards (See Appendix E). Of the approximate 7,000 miles of roads on CTCR, 960 are Tribal and maintained by BIA while 1,240 are county and state roads/highways (Holt, personal communication). The remaining 4,800 miles are primarily forest roads on Tribal trust, allotment, or fee land that typically receive maintenance only when harvest practices are ongoing in the area. Although ETD has yet to measure in-stream sediment loading, the road maintenance inventories have included measurements for tons of sediment lost per year since 2008 including Hall Creek, Twin Lakes, and Lower San Poil River RMUs. The inventory only 27

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

measured soil loss on road lengths that drained to surface water via stream crossings, ditches, or surface runoff up to 100 feet from a stream. According to the WARSEM model the three RMUs lose 254.1 tons of sediment from said road lengths per year.

Stream Habitat Assessment: See Appendix E for stream habitat data collected at stream monitoring sites by ETD in 2006 and 2007.

1998 Unified Watershed Assessment: As part of this assessment, ETD prepared a table of streams and major lakes that did not meet Tribal water quality standards including impairment type and problem source. Appendix F represents a list of impaired water bodies rather than WMUs as shown in Table VI (compiled from data collected 2006-2009) and includes a detailed sub- categorization of impairment types and sources. Listed streams may not be impaired for their entire length (CTCR, 1998).

Boundary Waters: Under Tribal code, the Columbia River is considered a Class I water and the Okanogan River a Class II. Starting in Canada and crossing the international boundary, the entire Columbia within reservation boundaries experiences exceedances of Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) standards, usually between April and July during maximum river flows. This varies significantly from year to year and may achieve acute levels (>130% saturation) below Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams. Improvements have been made to reduce to reduce gas entrainment at Chief Joseph Dam and operational changes have been instituted to minimize TDG at Grand Coulee Dam. CTCR was instrumental in formation of the Transboundary Gas Group with oversees reductions in TDG in Canadian and U.S. portions of the river. Okanogan River’s mean turbidity is 9.02 NTU (WDOE, 2010).

Fish Habitat: Salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration success or failure is not easily attributable to a single metric. For instance, temperature values affect salmonids in different ways during different stages of life; different salmonid species have different temperature thresholds for each life stage. The same is true for resident fish species. For a more detailed analysis of limiting factors affecting salmonid fishes, please consult the OBMEP website shown on page 15. On the Reservation Omak Creek, Wanacut Creek, Tunk Creek, and the Okanogan River itself, have existing and/or potential habitat for anadromous fish such as chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) or the federally listed summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 mykiss). Omak Creek currently has 5.4 miles of open habitat but has the potential for 27 miles of spawning habitat and 40 miles of rearing habitat; a barrier exists at Mission Falls. Wanacut Creek (1.2 miles open habitat) and Tunk Creek (.75 miles open habitat) both have natural falls that prevent further migration upstream (CTCR, 2007). Summer mean temperatures (reaching 20°C and up) in the Okanogan River and Omak Creek stress salmonids and delay migration habits. Salmonids suffer instant mortality at 25°C (CTCR, 2006; CTCR 2007). Tunk Creek is one of the coldest streams entering the Okanogan; however, low flow periods limit habitat availability for salmonids regularly. Little information is available regarding Wanacut Creek (CTCR, 2007).

Mining A recent review of hundreds of mining documents performed by Environmental Trust staff (Gary Passmore and Don Hurst, 2010) revealed records of only two actual producing mines located on the Reservation; these are in the Mineral Ridge area a few miles west of the town of Nespelem. They were very small operations and operated in the early 1900’s. An intensive molybdenum mine exploration project was conducted by AMAX from about 1977 to 1980 in the Mount Tolman area (southwest corner of Lower San Poil RMU), but no actual mining ever occurred. Water quality and sediment analysis from areas with past mining activity have revealed little or no pollution emanating from old mine workings and tailings material (Passmore, personal communication).

Ground Water Quality: CTCR relies on the provisions of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act for ground water quality standards and refer to drinking water standards set by the Washington State Department of Health. Seven inorganic contaminants exceeded maximum contaminant levels one or multiple times between 2006 and 2009: manganese, arsenic, iron, total dissolved solids, conductivity, sulfate, and nitrate-N. Six wells had corrosive samples three times or more. Volatile organic compounds, such as those found in solvents exceeded maximum contaminant levels once in two wells in the Omak District, and semi- volatile organic compounds (petroleum compounds) exceeded contaminant levels once in Nespelem (See Table VII). This assessment indicates that in general groundwater quality meets drinking water standards established by the EPA and Washington State Department of Health (CTCR, 2010 B).

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table VII: Ground water test wells with documented exceedances District Test Well Exceedance Possible Sources Severity Inchelium AA Camp Well Iron Local geology Very low Patti Bailey Well Iron Local geology Very low Manganese Sulfate Conductivity Total dissolved solids Inchelium City Well #4/5 Arsenic Local geology Very low Manganese Rainbow Beach Resort Well #1 Corrosivity Local geology Very low Keller William Campobasso Well Iron Local geology Very low Corrosivity Keller Mission Well Corrosivity Local geology Very low Keller Park Campground Well Corrosivity Local geology Very low Mt. Tolman Facility Well Corrosivity Local geology Very low Nespelem Cecelia Clark Well Manganese Local geology Very low Corrosivity Nespelem Rodeo Grounds Well Iron Local geology Very low Manganese Corrosivity CTCR Fish & Wildlife Facility Arsenic Local geology Very low Well CTCR Greenhouse Well Arsenic Local geology Very low Nitrate Unknown Manganese Conductivity Total dissolved solids Corrosivity Semi-volatile organic compound Colville Indian Agency Well Arsenic Local geology Very low Manganese Reynolds Resort Well Manganese Local geology Very low Corrosivity Rebecca Lake Well #1 Manganese Local geology Very low Seatons Grove Well Manganese Local geology Very low Total dissolved solids Riverbank Stabilization Well Arsenic Local geology Very low Manganese

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table VII: Continued District Test Well Exceedance Possible Sources Severity Omak Rocky River Road HUD Well #1 Arsenic Local geology Very low Manganese Omak HUD Well #1 Arsenic Local geology Very low Manganese Conductivity Lionel Orr Well Corrosivity Local geology Very low City of Omak (Eastside) Well Volatile organic Unknown Very low compound City of Okanogan Well #2 Conductivity Local geology Very low Total dissolved solids Unknown Volatile organic compound Coyote Creek Campground Well Manganese Local geology Very low Corrosivity Kris Ray Well Manganese Local geology Very low Corrosivity Malott HUD Well #1 Manganese Local geology Very low CTCR Fish Hatchery Well Manganese Local geology Very low Faith Frontiers Ministries Well Manganese Local geology Very low Corrosivity

Discussion Surface Water Quality: Mean turbidity results for the 77 stream monitoring sites approximated a normal distribution and since ETD had collected road survey data for 58 of those sites we were able to conduct parametric linear correlations (See Figure IX). Open road density and total road density had correlation coefficients of -0.0624 (SE = 0.1334) and -0.0062 (SE = 0.1336). Road density probably has no correlation with turbidity levels on CTCR although current results are not statistically significant. However, the number of stream crossings had a correlation coefficient of 0.555 (SE = 0.111). This is a highly statistically significant, though mediocre, correlation with a t-score of 5.0. ETD will examine stream crossings further, including crossing type, size, and condition to determine if a stronger correlation is dependent only on stream crossings or if stream crossings act more as an important element in a combination of variables. The WARSEM model only measured sediment loss from 13% of the total road lengths throughout Hall Creek, Twin Lakes, and Lower San Poil River RMUs. Additionally, these are only three of the fifteen RMUs that make up the Reservation and many other RMUs have a road system that interacts to a greater extent directly with streams. For instance, Hall Creek (115,442 acres) contains 784.34 miles of road and 296 stream crossings and Omak Creek (122,112 acres) contains 910.53 miles of road and 595 stream crossings. The actual road density between these two RMUs is very similar, yet Omak Creek has twice as many stream crossings, which would indicate that far more road length would fall into the WARSEM model alone. 31

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Figure IX: Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

ETD lacks effective information regarding rangeland management to study its impact on turbidity, Fecal coliform or E. coli levels. Historically, Range Management has been a significant industry and although the same is true presently, cattle numbers have been dropping throughout the Reservation (Desautel, personal communication). The extent of range’s impact on water quality remains unknown as is the effect on dropping livestock numbers. It is likely that what livestock pollution there is correlates with proximity and time of livestock interaction with surface water; rather than with overall livestock numbers in any Range Unit or Lease. In other words; it’s a management issue, not a numbers issue. ETD will need to partner more closely with BIA-Range program to have greater understanding and cooperation. ETD contacted the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for data regarding NPS pollution and agricultural lands; however NRCS has not inventoried or studied such data on a regional basis. As such, farming NPS pollution impact data for the reservation is currently unavailable. The stream habitat data collected is an initial effort on the part of ETD and is part of an iterative process. Although the methodology and format may be altered in the future, we can still gain some information from the initial results. For instance, 33 of the 43 stream sites sampled for habitat condition expressed bank instability, riparian vegetation degradation, or both. Additionally, from 2005 to 2010 ETD has issued 31 Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permits for stream bank stabilization totaling 4,129 ft – over three quarters of a mile. Further study of riparian/stream bank condition will reveal two important aspects: 1) if riparian/stream bank condition is a contributing factor along with stream crossings to turbidity, and 2) the dominant sources of condition degradation. CTCR does not currently have data on septic system impacts to water quality or even a running inventory of septic systems on the reservation. ETD has already recognized the need for such information and is in the planning stages for putting together such a database (Tonasket, personal communication).

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Historical data summarized in the 1998 Unified Watershed Assessment demonstrate the long history of surface water quality monitoring. But the report presented data in a manner that made quantifiable measurements unavailable and reference sources unclear. ETD still retains some of the cited reports and data, but a number of the references have been lost. Future 305(b) or tribal water quality assessment reports will evaluate monitoring data from this period to allow trend assessment.

Boundary Waters: Lake Roosevelt’s impairments for temperature and TDG are the result of multiple dams on the Columbia River and its major tributaries; there are nine such dams above the reservation boundaries. Lake Roosevelt also acts as a sink for toxic substances released in the upper Columbia, toxics such as: zinc, lead, copper, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and PCBs (Watson Engineering, 2006). Due to contamination, Lake Roosevelt currently has fish consumption advisories for three species: walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), burbot (Lota lota), and largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus). The Okanogan River turbidity levels are clearly the result of NPS soil erosion. High turbidities in Omak and Trail Creeks contribute to conditions in the river, though these watersheds are small relative to the river sub-basin. Agriculture is named as the source of PCB and DDT levels that precipitated the TMDL in the Okanogan River (WDOE, 2004). Okanogan River has also shown levels of organochlorides and trace metals, particularly arsenic (Watson Engineering, 2006). These substances are tied up in the river sediment and are not susceptible to practicable pollution control methods. Additionally, although mean temperature has not exceeded water quality standards, F&W has identified temperature as a limiting factor for anadromous fish success (CTCR, 2006).

Fish Habitat: Ensuring that each water body provides the designated uses described in Table I (pg. 10) is a complicated issue when it comes to fish. Various species and stages of life have different tolerances for different stressors. In some instances stressing factors may be exceedingly difficult to overcome. For example water temperatures, like those of concern in Omak Creek and Okanogan River, are most affected by air temperature. Colville Reservation is located in a warm climate so summer temperatures are going to be warm, and in fact, local anadromous fish populations have adapted to deal with warmer water than is normally possible for the species (CTCR, 2006). However, human activity such as cold water withdrawal (surface or groundwater) and riparian over story removal exacerbates the problem. Because temperature is somewhat of an ephemeral threat, decisions to allow or deny temporary human activities like water withdrawal need to consider seasonal variation.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Other impediments to anadromous fish habitat are barriers to migration, fine sediment (clogs spawning grounds) and discharge. The barrier at Mission Falls in Omak Creek, a rock fall that occurred in the early 1900’s during construction of a logging railroad, is in the process of being removed. This is one instance in which the problem is easily identifiable and there is a solution. Fine sediments covering spawning sites is directly related to the erosion problems discussed in the rest of this report (CTCR, 2007). Flushing out large fine sediment loads once they have entered stream systems can take decades. This clearly illustrates the need to take a preventative, rather than remedial, stance towards NPS erosion. Tunk Creek experiences low flows regularly, preventing it from becoming good habitat for adult salmonids. Are these low flows natural or has human activity altered the hydrology in the Tunk Creek WMU? There is a need to increase understanding of the cumulative effects of human activity on reservation hydrology and in-stream conditions.

Ground Water Quality: In general, groundwater sampled across the Reservation meets or exceeds state and federal drinking water standards. Measurement of several potential contaminants was discontinued prior to 2006 due to consistently very low levels in earlier monitoring including: barium, cadmium, chromium, and mercury. Measurement of several other contaminants was discontinued after 2006 for the same reason: nickel, silver, chloride, and copper. Some wells measured raised levels of certain naturally occurring elements or contaminants, nitrate-N and arsenic. Several wells registered samples containing volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals. Analysis for a group of semi-volatile organic chemicals (SVOCs) occurred for selected wells beginning in June 2000. Other groups were selected in June 2002, October 2005 and June 2007. SVOCs were detected in four of 12 samples at the City of Okanogan Well #2 but show no trigger level or maximum contaminant level exceedances; some detected values were estimates. SVOCs were detected in one of seven samples at the Cecilia Clark Well and two of eight samples at the CTCR Greenhouse Well; one analyte concentration from the Greenhouse well exceeded maximum contaminant level. All other wells in the monitoring network tested “Not Detected” for SVOC with zero values or at levels below instrument detection limits. Monitoring of volatile organic chemicals and semi-volatile organic chemicals was discontinued after 2007. Two wells, City of Omak (Eastside) and City of Okanogan Well #2, possessed VOC at or just above the trigger level. The Tribes have a Wellhead Protection Plan (Fulcrum Environmental Consulting, Inc., 2000). The plan’s purpose is to protect wellhead areas from contaminants which may have an adverse effect on people’s health. Wellhead protection areas are the surface and subsurface areas surrounding a water-well or well area, supplying a public water system,

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach a water well or well area. Twenty-one community wells have designated wellhead protection areas. For each area, the plan provides a site description, hydrogeologic conditions, delineation of the protection area, inventory of pollution sources, management plan, and contingency plan.

Selection of Best Management Practices Best management practices (BMPs) to control NPS water pollution have been in place on the Reservation since the 1980’s, and before at a more limited scale. They derive from a variety of sources and authorities, have been implemented with varying success for different NPS activities, and carried out by the spectrum of project proponents on the reservation (federal agencies, tribal departments, allottees, fee landowners, contractors). Some BMPs have also been revised or updated from time to time. Therefore, the Tribes have considerable experience in BMP selection, implementation, evaluation, and revision.

Core Participants: Several tribal programs have key roles in BMP selection. Three programs administer most tribal codes pertaining to natural resource protection: ETD, Planning, and Public Works Department. The natural resource codes are found within Title 4 of the current Colville Tribal Law & Order Code (CTCR, 2011). Generally, legislative intent within all tribal codes includes preserving and protecting the political integrity, the economic survival, and the health and welfare of the present and future members of the CTCR, as well as exercising the Tribes' powers of self-government and self-determination over all Reservation lands. ETD administers a number of tribal water quality codes, for wastewater systems, mining practices, forest practices, water quality standards, hydraulic projects, and water use. The wastewater, mining, forest practices and hydraulic projects codes all contain sections describing BMPs and requiring their use. Code administration includes permitting, monitoring, compliance, and importantly, updating of the codes including BMPs from time to time. ETD also monitors surface and ground water quality, and condition of stream channels, riparian habitat, and wetlands. This information is used to evaluate effectiveness of BMPs in use. ETD prescribes BMPs for the water quality improvement projects the program implements. Planning administers the Tribes’ Shoreline Management and Land Use and Development codes. The purpose of the Shoreline code is to establish the shoreline regulatory structure for the management of shoreline areas within the Reservation through planning and fostering of all reasonable and appropriate uses. The goal of the Land Use code is to

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

implement the Tribes’ Comprehensive Land Use Policy Guidelines. The Public Works Department administers the Solid Waste code. F&W takes an active role in the selection of effective BMPs, given their mission to manage fish, wildlife, and habitat on the Reservation. Their monitoring of aquatic, riparian, and upland habitat condition allows effectiveness evaluation of BMPs in use. F&W also prescribes BMPs for use in habitat restoration projects the program implements. H/A takes part in selection of BMPs by review of proposed tribal codes, participation in natural resource project planning, and Section 106 consultation (U.S.C., 1992). All tribal programs are charged with working to accomplish the Tribes Holistic Goal, or parts relevant to each program’s assigned responsibilities. Environmental objectives within the Holistic Goal include achieving a healthy environment, clean and safe communities, and effective water, mineral and energy cycles with biodiversity resulting in an abundance of culture, medicinal and edible plants, clean air and water, springs and streams that flow year round, large trees, wildlife, fish and insects. Several BIA programs are involved in managing NPS activities including silviculture, fire control, range, and roads. These are the Forestry, Range, and Roads programs. Each program has policies involving the application of BMPs, and has influence in their selection and application for resources they manage. The BIA-Range program writes farm conservation plans with recommendations for BMPs for allotments or other trust land being farmed. BIA-Forestry (including Fire Management) administers the Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) program for burned areas. A Reservation BAER team assesses effects due to wildfire and fire suppression activities, developing emergency stabilization or rehabilitation plans. The plans prescribe BMPs to address resource concerns resulting from fires. The BAER team includes resource specialists from Tribal and BIA programs already identified in this section. NRCS supports appropriate BMP use by Tribal and BIA resource management programs, allottees and fee landowners on the Reservation. NRCS typically does not take an active role in legislative or programmatic BMP selection, but provides technical and cost share assistance with individuals or on specific projects. BMP standards applied to fee forest lands are designated by the Washington State Forest Practices Board and administered by the Tribes Forest Practices Administrator. Washington State Extension provides education related to forest and agricultural BMPs. The Colville Reservation Conservation District also may provide technical and financial assistance related to selection and implementation of BMPs.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Public Participation and Governmental Coordination: Administrative procedures of the Tribes require advertisement, hearing, and public comment periods prior to adoption of Tribal codes. Large projects, or those significant to Reservation communities, are presented to the public at Reservation district meetings where the public may voice their opinion. Public tours of project areas are conducted in some cases. The public also may influence the selection of BMPs through participation in the NEPA process. NEPA is short for the National Environmental Policy Act, and requires scoping of issues, environmental assessment, and public comment related to natural resource management actions. Additionally, Tribal members contact members of the Business Council as well as programs and departments to independently address concerns. Governmental coordination occurs through several processes. Permitting of activities required by codes includes project description distribution, review, and comment by all the programs described above, and others having stakes in the various types of permits. A system exists for multidisciplinary project planning and review prior to permitting, referred to as the Project Planning Process or 3P. Monthly or more frequently, representatives from tribal and BIA programs described above, meet to discuss projects being planned. BMP recommendations for specific projects are provided by resource specialists of the various programs. The resource specialists write the NEPA environmental assessments when required following a project’s planning phase. As Tribal codes or code revisions are developed, typically the administering program provides drafts and incorporates comment throughout the process from other Tribal and BIA programs affected by the code. Before the code draft reaches the Office of Reservation Attorney, programs with a stake typically have several opportunities to comment. In one instance, revision of the Forest Practices Act, a task force was designated by resource program managers due to the level of interest and number of stakeholders. The forest practices task force recommended BMPs based in large part on direction provided by the IRMP. The Tribes and BIA both signed the IRMP in 2001 (CTCR, 2001B). This plan sets policy for forest and range management across the reservation up through the year 2014, recognized by all Tribal and BIA programs.

Existing BMPs: CTCR has promulgated multiple guidance documents (acts, codes, and standards) in regards to BMPs; the IRMP also specifies many BMPs to be applied. For complete documentation of authorized BMPs please access the sources listed in the BMP Guidance or Program Source column of Table VIII.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table VIII: BMP guidance by responsible agency and NPS category Agency NPS Pollutant Source Category BMP Guidance and Program Source ETD Agriculture Water quality standards GAP Silviculture Forest Practices Act IRMP GAP Hydrologic/ habitat modification Hydraulic Project Permitting Act Shoreline Management Act Water Quality Standards Act IRMP Section 319 GAP Resource extraction, exploration, and development Mining Practices Water Quality Act Roads Hydraulic Project Permitting Act Forest Practices Act Water Quality Standards Act IRMP GAP Section 319 Water flow adjustment Water Quality Standards Act Water Resources Use and Permitting Act GAP Other Water Quality Standards Act GAP F&W Agriculture NRCS Practice Standards EQIP Silviculture Forest Practices Act IRMP EQIP Hydrologic/habitat modification Hydraulic Project Permitting Act Shoreline Management Act IRMP WHIP Water flow adjustment Water Quality Standards Act BIA – Forestry Silviculture Forest Practices Act IRMP EQIP Hydrological/habitat modification Hydraulic Project Permitting Act IRMP Forest Practices Act Roads Forest Practices Act Hydraulic Project Permitting Act Water Quality Standards Act IRMP BIA – Range Agriculture NRCS Practice Standards IRMP EQIP Hydrologic/habitat modification Water Quality Standards Act Hydraulic Project Permitting Act IRMP EQIP

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Table VIII: Continued Agency NPS Pollutant Source Category BMP Guidance and Program Source BIA – BAER Agriculture NRCS Practice Standards Silviculture Forest Practices Act Hydrologic/habitat modification Hydraulic Project Permitting Act BIA – Roads Hydrologic/habitat modification Hydraulic Project Permitting Act Resource extraction, exploration, and development Mining Water Quality Code Roads Hydraulic Project Permitting Act Water Quality Standards Act Planning Construction (Development) Land Use and Development Act Shoreline Management Act Hydrologic/habitat modification Shoreline Management Act IRMP NRCS Agriculture EQIP Silviculture EQIP Construction EQIP Hydrologic/habitat modification EQIP WHIP Roads EQIP Water flow adjustment EQIP WDOT, Okanogan Hydrologic/habitat modification Hydraulic Project Permitting Act County, Ferry County Roads Hydraulic Project Permitting Act Water Quality Standards Act

Pollution Reduction (BMP performance and review): This section has described an extensive system of BMPs in place across the Reservation. In addition, a number of Tribal programs and other governmental agencies have roles in selecting and implementing BMPs. BMPs are selected by several different processes. Key employees assure proper implementation of BMPs. These include code administrators, contract officer representatives, and timber sale officers as well as equipment operators for programs such as BIA-Roads and Fire Management. Technicians from various programs also often install BMPs. This aspect will be addressed in more detail in the NPS Management Plan. Each Tribal code typically has language assigning the administering program to conduct review and recommend updates to the Colville Business Council. It becomes a responsibility of the code administrator to consider BMP and code effectiveness in general. Compliance monitoring by the program reveals strengths and weaknesses in code requirements and BMP effectiveness, and allows assessment of whether BMP requirements are actually being observed. A second method to review existing BMP performance is performance monitoring. It examines whether BMPs really are achieving intended resource objectives. ETD, F&W,

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

BIA-Range, and BIA-Forestry all conduct performance monitoring and inventories related to the resources they manage, which support review of BMP performance. The IRMP directs that monitoring will occur for purposes including BMP evaluation. This NPS assessment has relied primarily on results of water quality monitoring and road inventory conducted by ETD.

Existing NPS Control Programs Please see Table VIII for a programmatic use break down by agency and NPS category. Table VIII only includes programs pertaining to BMP installation. Programs in Use: The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) established the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program. Section 319 addresses the need for greater federal leadership to help focus state and local nonpoint source efforts. Under Section 319, states, territories and tribes receive grant money that supports a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects. CWA Section 106’s objectives are to provide financial assistance for maintaining adequate measures for prevention and control of surface and ground water pollution from both point and nonpoint sources. Tribes can conduct watershed assessments and can maintain and improve their capacity to implement water quality programs through monitoring, assessments, planning and standards development. Additionally, Tribes can participate in program activities related to the restoration of impaired watersheds such as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL); implementation of integrated wet weather strategies in coordination with nonpoint source programs; and development of source water protection programs. In 1992, Congress passed the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act which authorizes EPA to provide General Assistance Program (GAP) grants to federally- recognized tribes and tribal consortia for planning, developing, and establishing environmental protection programs in Indian country, as well as for developing and implementing solid and hazardous waste programs on tribal lands. Two NRCS programs are currently in use on the reservation. The Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) provides financial assistance to help develop conservation plans and implement conservation practices. Owners of land in agricultural production or persons who are engaged in livestock or agricultural production on eligible land may participate in the EQIP program. EQIP may provide payments up to 90 percent of the estimated incurred costs and income foregone of certain conservation practices and conservation activity plans for Tribes. The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) is

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

a voluntary program for conservation-minded landowners who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat on agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and Indian land. NRCS administers WHIP to provide both technical assistance and up to 75 percent cost share assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The BPA funds two programs that indirectly assist NPS control activities. First, and already mentioned in this report, is the LRFEP which is run by STI in partnership with CTCR F&W. BPA also funds the Lake Roosevelt Habitat Improvement Project through which F&W carries out implementation projects that improve fish habitat and NPS pollution sources simultaneously.

Potential Programs: The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. NRCS provides technical and financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts. The goal is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. This program offers landowners an opportunity to establish long-term conservation and wildlife practices and protection. The purpose of the Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) is to assist landowners, on a voluntary basis, in restoring, enhancing and protecting forestland resources on private lands through easements, 30-year contracts and 10-year cost-share agreements with NRCS. The objectives of HRFP are to: promote the recovery of endangered and threatened species, improve plant and animal biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestration. The NRCS Agricultural Management Assistance program provides cost share assistance to agricultural producers to voluntarily address issues such as water management, water quality, and erosion control by incorporating conservation into their farming operations. Producers may construct or improve water management structures or irrigation structures; plant trees for windbreaks or to improve water quality; and mitigate risk through production diversification or resource conservation practices, including soil erosion control, integrated pest management, or transition to organic farming. Reclamation's Native American Program provides technical assistance to Indian Tribes in the field of water resource development and management through direct participation, training, and partnering. The goal is to establish cooperative working relationships with the Tribes which enable the Tribe to take advantage and benefit from Reclamation's technical expertise and resources. Technical assistance may be provided to federally recognized Tribes to protect, manage and develop their water and related resources through special initiatives of the Native American Affairs Program, or it may also be provided through other projects and programs being conducted at the Regional and Area Offices. 41

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

The Five Star Restoration Grant Program provides modest financial assistance on a competitive basis to support community-based wetland, riparian, and coastal habitat restoration projects that build diverse partnerships and foster local natural resource stewardship through education, outreach and training activities.

Conclusions Within the Reservation, 26 of 59 monitored WMUs have documented exceedances in Fecal coliform, levels of concern in E. coli or turbidity, or some combination of the three. The severity of these exceedances and concern levels is not clear, particularly in regards to Fecal coliform and E. coli. None of the bacterial testing had enough data to prove statistical significance nor does ETD have enough data regarding rangeland management or septic systems to identify a probable source. On the other hand, turbidity is statistically, though not strongly related to the number of stream crossings within the WMU. When building the management plan, ETD will ensure that stream crossings are more thoroughly studied to better understand the relationship. Given the mediocre correlation between stream crossing number and turbidity, we recognize that simply taking a closer look at crossings may not fully illuminate turbidity sources. Other factors, unrelated to roads, that we have yet to identify may also be contributing to the elevated turbidity. Additionally, we recognize the need to further study the active sediment loss taking place across the Reservation road system and its impact on sediment loading in streams. We should remind readers that CTCR has 209 WMUs and that ETD has stream monitoring sites in only 59 of them. Each WMU is unique and though ETD does have a representative sample, we cannot say for certain that equal or larger problems do not exist elsewhere on the reservation. ETD has identified several information gaps regarding surface water quality to be addressed: . Rangeland: ETD needs to strengthen its partnership with Rangeland Management and to coordinate monitoring efforts and results. . Agriculture: ETD lacks information regarding the impacts of agriculture on reservation watersheds. ETD should utilize the partnership between the CTCR and NRCS to develop a better knowledge of agriculture on the reservation. . Residential Septic Systems: ETD should develop an inventory of residential septic systems of the reservation, including condition and proximity to streams. . Road effects: Roads within portions of the reservation need to be inventoried. Further study of road characteristics and their effect on turbidity and sediment loading is needed.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

. Stream Habitat and Condition: CTCR agencies have collected little data regarding steam habitat and condition; as such ETD is missing valuable water quality metrics as well as possible NPS pollution sources. . Riparian Condition: Riparian habitat is the last line of defense from upland NPS pollution. ETD needs to have a better understanding of the riparian zones on the reservation. . Lakes: ETD lacks a clear and comprehensive inventory of even the named lakes on the reservation and the available information is scattered and out of date. ETD should develop a monitoring system for lake water quality. . Residential Runoff: ETD has never studied the impact on water quality from built-up residential regions. Although this is a very minor part of the reservation as a whole, ETD recognizes the need to assess what kind of impact the areas are having on local water quality. . Hydrologic changes due to human activity: ETD needs a better understanding of how the various human activities taking place on the reservation are altering hydrology.

The greatest threats to boundary water quality are point sources outside of tribal jurisdiction. Despite the Tribes’ relatively insignificant negative impacts on the boundary waters, both rivers are very important historically, culturally, and ecologically. As such the Tribes’ will continue to work for water quality improvement in the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers on and off the reservation. Groundwater quality has thus far shown little NPS pollution concerns; monitoring will continue at a decreased level in the future. From the information available, except for the boundary rivers water quality in CTCR is not “impaired,” but ETD does have some concerns that require actions. Turbidity levels may not exceed tribal standards, but may be high enough to degrade wildlife habitat, a key use under all water classes. Fecal coliform and E. coli levels clearly need to have further monitoring and more thorough investigation of sources. As an unknown, bacterial levels may be causing serious damage to water quality or may be completely insignificant. ETD must have a better understanding of bacterial levels in order to more effectively address the issue. However, from the current analysis, ETD feels that no watershed is beyond attaining and maintaining tribal water quality standards.

Treatment in a manner similar to a state: The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Tribes) are a federally recognized tribe. The Tribes have an approved NPS assessment report and management program plan (CTCR, 1992), and have “treatment-in-a-manner-similar-to-a-state” status in accordance with CWA section 518(e).

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

References

Main Text Bailey, P. personal communication, Jan. 18, 2011. CTCR. (1985). Colville tribal code chapter 4 - 8: water quality standards [Resolution No. 1984 - 526 (8/6/84) as amended by Resolution No. 1985 - 20 (1/18/85)]. Nespelem, WA. CTCR. (1992). Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Management Program. Nespelem, WA. CTCR. (1995) Omak Creek watershed plan and environmental assessment. Nespelem, WA. NRCS. CTCR. (1996). Integrated resources management plan: hydrology. Nespelem, WA. Hunner, W. and Jones, C. CTCR. (1998). Unified watershed assessment clean water action plan. Nespelem, WA. Passmore, G. CTCR. (2001) A. Colville Indian Reservation record of decision and plan for integrated resources management 2000-2014. Nespelem, WA. Klock, G. O and St. Pierre, J. CTCR. (2001) B. Colville Indian Reservation surface water monitoring plan. Nespelem, WA. Hunner, Walter. CTCR. (2006). The Okanogan Subbasin water quality and quantity report for anadromous fish. Nespelem, WA. Kistler, K. and Arterburn, J. CTCR. (2007). Anadromous fish passage barriers in the Okanogan Basin. Nespelem, WA. Arterburn, J., Kistler, K., and Fisher, C. CTCR. (2010) A. Water quality assessment report for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation for the period 2006-2009. Nespelem, WA. Thorn, T. CTCR. (2010) B. Groundwater quality assessment report for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation for the period 2006-2009. Nespelem, WA. Thorn, T. CTCR. (2011) Colville tribal law & order code. Nespelem, WA. Desautel, C. personal communication, Dec. 20, 2010. Dubé, K., Megahan, W., McCalmon, M. (2004) Washington road surface erosion model prepared for the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. EPA. (1998) EPA guidance for quality assurance project plans (QAPP)(EPA/600/R-98/018). EPA. (2000). Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion III (EPA 822-B- 00-016). Fulcrum Environmental Consulting Inc. (2000) Colville Indian Reservation quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for water monitoring activities. Spokane, WA. Fulcrum Environmental Consulting Inc. (2000) Colville Indian Reservation wellhead protection plan. Spokane, WA.General Soil Map. [Map] Washington State University Agriculture Research Center. NRCS. Holt, S. personal communication, Dec. 23, 2010. Keller, W. personal communication, Jan 24, 2011. NRCS. (2002). Soil survey of Colville Indian Reservation, Washington, parts of Ferry and Okanogan Counties. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office. Passmore, G. personal communication, Jan 28,2011.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Solomon, M. (2010). Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation: achieving water resource goals. University of Idaho. Moscow, ID. Tonasket, D. personal communication, Jan. 18, 2011. U.S.C. (1992) National historic preservation act, U.S. code of federal regulations (36 CFR Part 800). Washington, D.C. United States Congress. Watson Engineering. (2006) Quality of the waters of the Columbia River, Lake Roosevelt and Okanogan River within the Colville Reservation. Helena, MT. WDOE. (2004). Lower Okanogan River DDT and PCBs total maximum daily load. (Publication Number 04-10-043) Olympia, WA. Peterschmidt, Mark. WDOE. (2008). Draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the Lake Roosevelt incremental storage releases program. (Publication Number 08-11-012) Yakima, WA. Wellner, Joanne. WDOE. (2010). River and stream water quality monitoring [Data File]. Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw_riv/rv_main.html#4 Wolcott, E. E. (1964). Lakes of Washington, eastern Washington. (vol. 2) Olympia, WA. WA Dept. of Natural Resources, Aquatics Division.

Appendix A Soil Conservation Service. (1983). Scientific and common plant names and synonymy: state of Washington. Spokane, WA.

Appendix B CTCR. (1996). Integrated resources management plan: hydrology. Nespelem, WA. Hunner, W. and Jones, C. Orsborn, J. F. and Orsborn, M. T. (2000) Analysis of stream flows in watersheds, sub-basins and basins for the Colville Indian Reservation: task 4 of the 1998-99 CTCR hydrology study. Port Ludlow, WA.

Appendix C Broch, E. and Loescher, J. (1994) Nutrient, primary productivity, and alkalinity data of Colville Reservation lakes from September 1986 to September 1994. Washington State University. Pullman, WA. CTCR. (1996). Integrated resources management plan: hydrology. Nespelem, WA. Hunner, W. and Jones, C. CTCR. (1998). Unified watershed assessment clean water action plan. Nespelem, WA. Passmore, G. United States Geological Survey. (1974). Water resources of the Colville Indian Reservation, Washington. Tacoma, WA.

Appendix D CTCR. (1998). Unified watershed assessment clean water action plan. Nespelem, WA. Passmore, G.

Appendix E Duck Creek Associates. (2004). Summary of data collection, data editing, and general observations of the global position systems mapping project performed for the Confederated Tribes Of the

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Colville Indian Reservation (CTCR) on the Kartar Valley and Lost Creek Resource Management Units. Corvallis, OR. Duck Creek Associates. (2004). Summary of data collection, data editing, and general observations of the global position systems mapping project performed for the Confederated Tribes Of the Colville Indian Reservation (CTCR) for Omak Creek RMU. Corvallis, OR. Duck Creek Associates. (2005). Summary of data collection, data editing, and general observations of the global position systems (GPS) mapping project performed for the Confederated Tribes Of the Colville Indian Reservation (CTCR) on the Upper San Poil Resource Management Unit. Corvallis, OR. Duck Creek Associates. (2006). Summary of data collection, data editing, and general observations of the global position systems (GPS) mapping project performed for the Confederated Tribes Of the Colville Indian Reservation (CTCR) on the West Fork San Poil and Nespelem Resource Management Units. Corvallis, OR. Duck Creek Associates. (2008). Summary of data collection, data editing, and general observations of the global position systems (GPS) mapping project performed for the Confederated Tribes Of the Colville Indian Reservation (CTCR) on the Twin Lakes Resource Management Unit. Corvallis, OR. Duck Creek Associates. (2009). Summary of data collection, data editing, and general observations of the global position systems (GPS) mapping project performed for the Confederated Tribes Of the Colville Indian Reservation (CTCR) on the Lower San Poil Resource Management Unit. Corvallis, OR. Duck Creek Associates. (2010). Summary of data collection, data editing, and general observations of the global position systems (GPS) mapping project performed for the Confederated Tribes Of the Colville Indian Reservation (CTCR) on the Twin Lakes Resource Management Unit. Corvallis, OR.

Appendix F CTCR (1998). Unified watershed assessment clean water action plan. Nespelem, WA. Passmore, G.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Appendix A Indicator Species by Code, Latin and Common Name

Species Code Latin Name Common Name ABGR Abies grandis Grand fir ABLA Abies lasiocapra Subalpine fir AGSP Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch wheatgrass ARRI Artemisia rigida Stiff sagebrush CAPR Carex praegracilis Clusterfield sedge FEID Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue PIAL Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine PIPO Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine PSME Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir PUTR Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush THPL Thuja plicata Western red cedar

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 Appendix B Stream Data by Watershed Management Unit (WMU)

RMU WMU HUC 12 Watershed Streams (mi) Average Size (ac) Flow (cfu) Buffalo Buffalo Creek 170200050202 4988 10.6 1.3 Lake/Swawilla Buffalo Lake 170200050202 3759 5.3 Basin Coulee Dam 170200010611 9463 11.7 170200050203 McGinnis Lake 170200050201 2416 2.4 0.6 Peter Dan Creek 170200050201 10202 19.9 2.7 Poker Joe Springs 170200050204 12147 16.9 2.8 170200050202 170200050203 Rebecca Lake 170200050202 2456 3.7 0.6 Seaton Grove 170200050201 2806 0.6 170200050202 170200050203 Swawilla Basin 170200010611 16825 26.0 170200050201 Hall Creek Barnaby Creek 170200010306 9339 12.9 15.8 170200010405 Cobbs Creek 170200010309 2053 2.8 0.9 Columbia River 01 170200010307 1527 1.5 Columbia River 02 170200010309 3307 Columbia River 03 170200010309 3141 Grizzly Creek 170200010401 2132 3.56 1.7 Johns Mountain Creek 170200010402 3167 5.1 2.1 Little Jim Creek 170200010309 2917 3.37 1.3 Lower Hall Creek 170200010403 19246 47.6 77.5 170200010405 Lower Lynx Creek 170200010404 6707 12.9 17.0 North Fork Hall Creek 170200010405 8552 19.6 7.9 Onion Creek 170200010405 2877 5.5 1.9 Sitdown Creek 170200010402 11312 21.6 12.5 Sleepy Hollow 170200010401 972 2.4 2.6 Stall Creek 170200010403 3184 6.6 4.8 Upper Hall Creek 170200010401 11133 28.5 41.2 170200010403 Upper Lynx Creek 170200010404 16562 33.7 12.3 West Fork Hall Creek 170200010401 7315 10.7 6.8

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU HUC 12 Watershed Streams (mi) Average Size (ac) Flow (cfu) Hellgate Brody Creek 170200010608 5997 7.5 2.5 Columbia River 09 170200010509 1196 1.4 Columbia River 10 170200010509 1545 Columbia River 11 170200010509 1425 Columbia River 12 170200010509 2399 170200010605 Columbia River 13 170200010607 2422 27.0 Columbia River 14 170200010607 1062 Columbia River 15 170200010607 1838 3.7 Columbia River 16 170200010608 4735 1.6 Columbia River 17 170200010608 2217 2.5 Columbia River 18 170200010608 4673 Cottonwood Creek 170200010509 938 1.25 0.2 Hellgate Canyon 170200010608 1990 4.0 0.5 Johnny-George 170200010605 4024 9.0 0.9 Louie Creek #2 170200010509 834 0.2 North Fork Three Mile 170200010509 3885 4.92 1.3 Creek Rattlesnake Draw 170200010605 1630 2.9 0.4 Redford Canyon 170200010608 6035 1.8 Six Mile Creek 170200010509 7692 12.2 2.9 South Fork Three Mile 170200010509 3852 4.2 1.3 Creek Three Mile Creek 170200010509 299 1.21 2.6 Whitestone Creek 170200010608 2236 2.4 0.7

Kartar Valley Beaver House Creek 170200060407 1668 7.2 0.4 Columbia River 24 170200050208 4611 8.0 Columbia River 25 170200050208 15776 33.3 170200050210 Coyote Creek #1 170200050205 17433 21.2 7.6 Goose Flats 170200050209 19529 45.5 Harrison Creek 170200050208 5129 7.0 1.3 170200060406 Kartar Creek 170200060406 13825 35.5 4.6 Lost Creek #2 170200050205 3154 5.6 1.2 Nason Creek 170200060406 8614 26.8 10.2 No Name Creek 170200060407 2727 11.0 0.6 Omak Lake 170200060407 28861 86.1 Poison Oak Creek 170200060407 2537 8.7 0.8 Rattlesnake Creek 170200060406 2325 8.9 0.7 Smith Condon Creek 170200060406 5191 6.67 1.7

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU HUC 12 Watershed Streams (mi) Average Size (ac) Flow (cfu) Little Joe Moses Creek 170200050107 12873 27.8 6.3 Nespelem Lower Little Nespelem 170200050106 11300 18.6 26.5 River River 170200050107 Owhi Creek 170200050105 5117 12.8 2.3 Owhi Lake 170200050105 3174 1.1 Poween Creek 170200050107 2766 3.9 0.9 Upper Little Nespelem 170200050106 23981 34.7 15.8 River 170200050105 170200050108

Lost Creek Haden Creek 170200040204 6571 11.7 5.7 Loony Creek 170200040205 4548 8.7 3.1 Lower Lost Creek 170200040204 9129 11.9 43.5 170200040205 Moses Creek 170200040204 9407 14.1 11.8 Sheep Creek 170200040205 1600 3.2 1.4 South Fork Lost Creek 170200040204 3460 3.9 2.6 Upper Lost Creek 170200040204 7407 13.5 43.5

Lower San Alice Creek 170200040403 2033 3.98 0.6 Poil River Brush Creek 170200040403 4080 8.4 1.5 Cache Creek 170200040403 5042 9.8 1.9 Columbia River 19 170200040405 2519 3.5 Columbia River 20 170200040405 480 Columbia River 21 170200040405 614 Columbia River 22 170200040405 1817 Columbia River 23 170200040405 3945 3.9 Copper Creek 170200040405 5744 11.5 1.9 Cow Creek 170200040403 776 1.6 0.2 Dick Creek 170200040405 4388 5.4 1.5 Empire Creek 170200040403 3106 6.2 1.0 Forty Mile Creek 170200040403 1680 2.46 0.4 Iron Creek 170200040403 5917 10.4 2.2 Jack Creek 170200040403 5429 12.2 2.0 John Tom Creek 170200040405 4903 8.0 1.6 Lime Creek #1 170200040403 2910 6.1 1.0 Louie Creek #1 170200040402 6829 6.9 2.8 Lower San Poil River 170200040405 9219 17.0 290.2 170200040403 170200040402 Manila Creek 170200040404 13704 30.9 4.5 McAllister Creek 170200040402 2061 3.1 0.6

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU HUC 12 Watershed Streams (mi) Average Size (ac) Flow (cfu) Lower San Meadow Creek 170200040405 5119 13.8 1.9 Poil River (cont.) Silver Creek 170200040405 3331 6.4 1.1

Nespelem Armstrong Creek 170200050104 3823 7.2 1.7 River Kinkaid Creek 170200050101 4727 14.4 2.1 Lower Nespelem River 170200050108 20932 56.1 66.0 170200050103 170200050101 Mill Creek #1 170200050104 9107 12.2 8.7 North Star Creek 170200050103 7756 16.5 4.1 Parmenter Creek 170200050103 4343 8.1 2.3 Peel Creek 170200050104 1310 3.3 0.6 Smith Creek 170200050108 6763 8.6 2.7 Stepstone Creek 170200050102 12544 27.4 7.8 Upper Nespelem River 170200050101 9035 20.2 4.0 Whitelaw Creek 170200050104 4329 12.2 1.9

Nine Mile Canteen Creek 170200010507 2420 5.1 1.3 Creek Columbia River 08 170200010508 4207 Cook Creek 170200010505 4270 7.4 2.6 Faye Creek 170200010505 2837 9.7 1.9 Gibson Creek 170200010504 2250 3.5 1.5 Jerred Creek 170200010507 3146 6.3 2.1 Jones Creek 170200010504 4037 7.3 2.9 Klondyke Creek 170200010504 3438 6.0 2.4 Little Nine Mile Creek 170200010507 3702 6.1 2.0 Lower Nine Mile Creek 170200010505 10280 25.9 45.1 170200010507 Middle Nine Mile 170200010505 6562 19.0 45.1 Creek Olds Creek 170200010505 2229 3.6 1.5 Pollock Creek 170200010504 2586 6.0 1.9 Sclome Creek 170200010506 4211 7.8 2.4 South Fork Nine Mile 170200010506 14319 29.3 10.7 Creek Upper Nine Mile Creek 170200010504 5920 21.5 15.4 Wells Creek 170200010504 4171 9.8 2.7

Omak Creek Camp Seven Creek 170200060409 3499 9.5 1.6 Clark Creek 170200060309 4161 7.4 2.2 Corkscrew Creek 170200060410 5839 15.2 1.3 Haley Creek 170200060410 5039 25.1 1.7 Lower Omak Creek 170200060410 17476 76.8 40.1

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU HUC 12 Watershed Streams (mi) Average Size (ac) Flow (cfu)

Omak Creek Mill Creek #2 170200060405 3840 15.0 1.6 (cont.) Mission Creek 170200060410 7326 9.5 2.1 Okanogan River 01 170200060411 6823 27.2 Okanogan River 02 170200060411 4351 12.2 Stapaloop Creek 170200060409 10344 39.35 6.9 Swimptkin Creek 170200060409 5870 10.8 3.6 Trail Creek 170200060408 6818 11.6 4.9 Tunk Creek 170200060208 5760 21.6 1.3 Upper Omak Creek 170200060408 25770 50.3 40.1 170200060409 Wanacut Creek 170200060405 9195 38.7 4.9

Southwest Cameron Lake 170200060506 4073 5.1 170200060504 Plateau Chicken Creek 170200050405 8485 27.0 Columbia River 26 170200050401 9040 170200050403 Columbia River 27 170200050403 16043 170200050404 170200050405 Columbia River 28 170200050405 15031 170200060509 Dan Canyon 170200060508 9082 40.4 2.1 Felix Creek 170200060504 3436 11.6 0.8 Long Lake 170200050402 8731 16.4 2.0 Okanogan River 03 170200060411 9707 19.1 170200060504 Okanogan River 04 170200060504 11833 33.7 170200060509 Okanogan River 05 170200060506 6072 17.6 Potholes 170200060506 13766 11.5 Salt Hill 170200060506 8673 11.0 170200060507 170200060508 Soap Lake 170200060507 14040 48.6 South Plateau 170200050402 21412 28.2 170200050403 170200050404 170200050405 170200060506 Stubblefield Point 170200050401 5984 6.8 170200050402 170200050403 Tum Water Creek 170200050402 8367 46.0 1.9

Twin Lakes Beaver Dam Creek 170200010407 6001 15.8 4.3 Columbia River 04 170200010410 6610 0.9

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU HUC 12 Watershed Streams (mi) Average Size (ac) Flow (cfu) Twin Lakes Cornstalk Creek 170200010408 7241 9.5 (cont.) Granite Creek 170200010407 5927 10.7 4.6 Lower Stranger Creek 170200010408 7714 14.5 30.2 North Twin Lake 170200010407 7285 12.3 1.9 South Twin Lake 170200010407 4009 2.9 30.2 Stray Dog Canyon 170200010410 6153 4.3 2.5 Upper Stranger Creek 170200010408 10551 13.0 30.2

Upper San Anderson Creek 170200040302 3588 6.4 1.3 Poil River Bear Creek 170200040305 4251 8.0 1.6 Bridge Creek 170200040401 19496 35.4 10.7 Capoose Creek 170200040402 3836 7.2 1.1 Cub Creek 170200040305 1643 2.1 0.4 Deadhorse Creek 170200040305 3340 5.5 1.1 Nineteen Mile Creek 170200040302 2807 5.8 0.9 North Nanamkin Creek 170200040305 10225 19.5 4.1 Seventeen Mile Creek 170200040301 13418 20.7 9.1 South Nanamkin Creek 170200040305 10713 23.5 4.3 South Seventeen Mile 170200040301 4502 5.4 2.0 Creek Thirteen Mile Creek 170200040108 1081 5.9 Thirty Mile Creek 170200040304 15941 29.4 7.7 Tigger Creek 170200040306 2883 1.0 Twenty Five Mile 170200040305 3038 6.3 1.0 Creek Twenty One Mile 170200040302 8600 13.4 4.6 Creek Twenty Three Mile 170200040303 19496 31.4 10.5 Creek Upper San Poil River 170200040402 23066 42.4 290.2 170200040305 107200040302 170200040108

West Fork Bungalow Creek 170200040206 1210 2.6 0.5 SPR Deerhorn Creek 170200040206 3243 3.8 1.6 King Creek 170200040206 2039 3.9 1.0 Lime Creek #2 170200040207 141 1.1 0.5

Lower Gold Creek 170200040206 6742 17.0 16.2

Lower West Fork SPR 170200040207 7077 13.3 104.8

Roaring Creek 170200040207 1974 3.1 1.1 Strawberry Creek 170200040206 4296 9.1 2.1 Upper Gold Creek 170200040206 12962 25.3 8.1 Upper West Fork SPR 170200040207 1451 2.9 104.8

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU HUC 12 Watershed Streams (mi) Average Size (ac) Flow (cfu) Wilmont Columbia River 05 170200010411 3410 0.9 170200010410 Creek Columbia River 06 170200010412 1201 170200010508 Columbia River 07 170200010508 3159 1.7 Coyote Creek #2 170200010412 2246 3.4 0.8 Dry Creek 170200010503 2215 5.6 1.5 Falls Creek 170200010412 8649 15.9 4.3 Little Wilmont Creek 170200010503 5937 12.6 3.4 Lower Wilmont Creek 170200010503 11916 20.4 20.0 Monaghan Creek 170200010508 2558 5.5 1.0 Nez Perce 170200010411 18942 34.3 10.1 170200010412 Rock 170200010503 762 2.1 0.5 Three Forks Creek 170200010503 1534 2.8 1.0 Upper Wilmont Creek 170200010503 12581 35.33 20.0

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Appendix C Selected Lake Data by Resource Management Unit (RMU)

RMU Lake Area (ac) Max. Depth (ft) Trophic Status Buffalo Buffalo Lake 539 121 Mesotrophic Lake/Swawilla McGinnis Lake 118 46 Mesotrophic Basin Rebecca Lake 53 46

Hall Creek Camille Lake 20 Eutrophic Elbow Lake 49 8 Mesotrophic La Fleur Lake 23 34 Eutrophic Nicholas Lake 2 26 Mesotrophic Lower Simpson Lake 22 40 Eutrophic Upper Simpson Lake 8 Mesotrophic Sugar Lake 4 Mesotrophic-Eutrophic

Kartar Valley Big Goose Lake 10 Eutrophic Grant Lake 7 Mesotrophic-Eutrophic Omak Lake 3340 315 Saline-Mesotrophic

Little Owhi Lake 485 77 Eutrophic Nespelem River

Lost Creek Crawfish Lake 82 35 Oligotrophic-Mesotrophic

Lower San French John’s Lake 15 Mesotrophic Poil River

Nespelem Johnson Lake 55 12 Eutrophic River

Omak Creek Summit Lake 12 25 Mesotrophic-Oligotrophic

Southwest Duley Lake 62 11 Eutrophic Plateau Little Goose Lake 248 10 Eutrophic Soap Lake 154 57 Saline-Mesotrophic-Eutrophic

Twin Lakes Apex 29 Eutrophic Borgeau 19 56 Mesotrophic North Twin 917 50 Mesotrophic-Eutrophic South Twin 1020 57 Eutrophic-Mesotrophic Round 51 35 Mesotrophic-Eutrophic

Upper San Cody Lake 6 Mesotrophic-Eutrophic Poil River

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU Lake Area (ac) Max. Depth (ft) Trophic Status West Fork Gold Lake 27 45 Mesotrophic SPR

Wilmont Fish 2 Eutrophic

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Appendix D Current Road Survey Data Summary

RMU WMU WMU Open Open Total Total # Stream Size Roads Road Roads Road Crossings (mi2) (mi) Density (mi) Density (mi/mi2) (mi/mi2) Hall Creek Barnaby Creek 14.6 50.9 3.5 73.8 5.1 19 Cobbs Creek 3.2 8.8 2.7 13.2 4.1 5 Columbia River 01 2.4 4.5 1.9 13.0 5.4 0 Columbia River 02 5.2 12.1 2.3 21.6 4.2 1 Columbia River 03 4.9 17.6 3.6 28.5 5.8 1 Grizzly Creek 3.3 10.4 3.1 10.6 3.2 6 Johns Mountain Creek * 5.0 13.3 2.7 21.2 4.3 14 Little Jim Creek 4.6 15.2 3.3 28.5 6.3 6 Lower Hall Creek 30.0 78.9 2.6 152.7 5.1 24 Lower Lynx Creek 10.5 12.9 1.2 37.3 3.6 13 North Fork Hall Creek * 13.4 27.3 2.0 52.8 4.0 22 Onion Creek 4.5 5.7 1.3 12.2 2.7 4 Sitdown Creek * 17.7 51.3 2.9 83.8 4.7 59 Sleepy Hollow 1.5 1.9 1.3 4.2 2.8 11 Stall Creek * 5.0 15.5 3.1 25.0 5.0 11 Upper Hall Creek * 17.4 58.3 3.4 95.2 5.3 47 Upper Lynx Creek * 25.9 44.0 1.7 99.2 3.8 43 West Fork Hall Creek 11.4 8.2 0.7 13.4 1.2 10 Kartar Beaver House Creek 2.6 Valley Columbia River 24 7.2 14.7 2.0 15.5 2.2 4 Columbia River 25 24.7 48.8 2.0 50.5 2.0 20 Coyote Creek #1 27.2 105.3 3.9 124.4 4.6 79 Goose Flats 30.5 40.2 1.3 42.3 1.4 7 Harrison Creek 8.0 18.2 2.3 25.2 3.1 23 Kartar Creek 21.6 48.6 2.3 72.7 3.3 41 Lost Creek #2 4.9 20.6 4.2 26.0 5.3 17 Nason Creek 13.5 49.9 3.7 60.0 4.5 33 No Name Creek 4.3 3.6 0.8 3.6 0.8 1 Omak Lake 45.1 47.0 1.0 54.6 1.2 30 Poison Oak Creek 4.0 6.8 1.7 9.9 2.5 3 Rattlesnake Creek 3.6 9.4 2.6 11.0 3.0 3

Smith Condon Creek 8.1 21.6 2.7 30.1 3.7 25 WMUs * have high or extreme sensitivity with stricter total road density standards. Bolded road densities meet required standards.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU WMU Open Open Total Total # Stream Size Roads Road Roads Road Crossings (mi2) (mi) Density (mi) Density (mi/mi2) (mi/mi2) Lost Creek Haden Creek 10.2 49.1 4.8 67.6 6.6 35 Loony Creek 7.1 10.5 1.5 17.7 2.5 9 Lower Lost Creek 14.3 45.3 3.2 53.6 3.8 20 Moses Creek 14.7 47.9 3.3 54.2 3.7 51 Sheep Creek 2.5 6.8 2.7 9.6 3.8 3 South Fork Lost Creek 5.4 28.6 5.3 35.1 6.5 12 Upper Lost Creek 11.6 33.1 2.9 42.8 3.7 22 Lower San Alice Creek 3.2 2.1 0.7 6.1 1.9 5 Poil River Brush Creek 6.4 12.4 1.9 21.8 3.4 11 Cache Creek * 7.9 41.5 5.3 56.2 7.1 32 Columbia River 19 3.9 7.7 2.0 7.9 2.0 2 Columbia River 20 0.8 1.9 2.5 1.9 2.5 Columbia River 21 1.0 3.9 4.1 5.2 5.4 1 Columbia River 22 2.8 16.2 5.7 17.5 6.2 0 Columbia River 23 6.2 Copper Creek * 9.0 12.0 1.3 26.5 3.0 16 Cow Creek * 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 1 Dick Creek 6.9 7.8 1.1 10.1 1.5 1 Empire Creek 4.9 13.1 2.7 20.3 4.2 19 Forty Mile Creek 2.6 1.8 0.7 1.8 0.7 0 Iron Creek 9.3 23.7 2.6 37.0 4.0 16 Jack Creek * 8.5 32.2 3.8 43.1 5.1 26 John Tom Creek 7.7 17.4 2.3 23.5 3.1 6 Lime Creek #1 * 4.6 14.7 3.2 23.3 5.1 27 Louie Creek #1 10.7 42.8 4.0 52.4 4.9 17 Lower San Poil River 14.4 57.9 4.0 63.4 4.4 7 Manila Creek * 21.4 69.0 3.2 81.9 3.8 59 McAllister Creek 3.2 8.6 2.7 16.2 5.0 13 Meadow Creek * 8.0 27.4 3.4 37.9 4.7 26

Silver Creek 5.2 11.5 2.2 21.8 4.2 10 WMUs * have high or extreme sensitivity with stricter total road density standards. Bolded road densities meet required standards.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU WMU Open Open Total Total # Stream Size Roads Road Roads Road Crossings (mi2) (mi) Density (mi) Density (mi/mi2) (mi/mi2) Nespelem Armstrong Creek 6.0 25.0 4.2 29.0 4.9 10 River Kinkaid Creek 7.4 15.1 2.0 31.9 4.3 19 Lower Nespelem River 32.7 80.5 2.5 89.4 2.7 17 Mill Creek #1 14.2 53.0 3.72 60.9 4.3 27 North Star Creek 12.1 34.8 2.9 37.0 3.1 16 Parmenter Creek 6.8 24.7 3.6 27.3 4.0 4 Peel Creek 2.1 10.3 5.0 12.9 6.3 9 Smith Creek 10.6 41.3 3.9 50.0 4.7 23 Stepstone Creek 19.6 38.0 1.9 49.7 2.5 40 Upper Nespelem River 14.1 31.0 2.2 47.0 3.3 29 Whitelaw Creek 6.8 16.2 2.4 22.0 3.3 10 Omak Camp Seven Creek 5.5 14.5 2.7 29.9 5.5 42 Creek Clark Creek 6.5 31.0 4.8 35.6 5.5 10 Corkscrew Creek 9.1 12.1 1.3 16.4 1.8 11 Haley Creek 7.9 9.5 1.2 9.6 1.2 13 Lower Omak Creek 27.3 51.8 1.9 60.4 2.2 79 Mill Creek #2 6.0 15.3 2.6 21.3 3.6 37 Mission Creek 11.5 8.8 0.8 9.3 0.8 6 Okanogan River 01 10.7 18.9 1.8 20.8 2.0 27 Okanogan River 02 7.0 16.6 2.4 17.7 2.6 12 Stapaloop Creek 16.2 43.7 2.7 52.9 3.3 30 Swimptkin Creek 9.2 30.6 3.3 44.4 4.8 25 Trail Creek 10.7 29.9 2.8 43.1 4.0 40 Tunk Creek 9.0 38.6 4.3 41.9 4.7 96 Upper Omak Creek 40.3 155.6 3.9 226.7 5.6 129 Wanacut Creek 14.4 33.7 2.3 36.4 2.5 38 Twin Beaver Dam Creek * 9.4 29.6 3.2 34.8 3.7 30 Lakes Columbia River 04 10.3 44.6 4.3 46.8 4.5 4 Cornstalk Creek * 11.3 48.7 4.3 60.4 5.3 19 Granite Creek * 9.3 33.4 3.6 47.8 5.2 26 Lower Stranger Creek 12.1 35.3 2.8 45.0 3.7 12 North Twin Lake * 11.4 34.0 3.0 61.7 5.4 25 South Twin Lake 6.3 15.3 2.4 18.8 3.0 10 Stray Dog Canyon 9.6 38.5 3.0 54.4 5.7 16

Upper Stranger Creek 16.5 77.3 4.7 98.4 6.0 38 WMUs * have high or extreme sensitivity with stricter total road density standards. Bolded road densities meet required standards.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

RMU WMU WMU Open Open Total Total # Stream Size Roads Road Roads Road Crossings (mi2) (mi) Density (mi) Density (mi/mi2) (mi/mi2) Upper San Anderson Creek 5.6 13.6 2.4 15.2 2.7 18 Poil River Bear Creek 6.6 8.4 1.3 8.9 1.3 9 Bridge Creek * 30.5 109.1 3.6 121.0 4.0 60 Capoose Creek * 6.0 27.9 4.7 37.6 6.3 13 Cub Creek 2.6 3.6 1.4 6.2 2.4 2 Deadhorse Creek 5.2 14.5 2.8 20.6 3.9 16 Nineteen Mile Creek 4.4 7.3 1.7 9.2 2.1 6 North Nanamkin Creek 16.0 33.7 2.1 39.0 2.4 19 Seventeen Mile Creek * 21.0 34.8 1.7 65.1 3.1 35 South Nanamkin Creek 16.7 62.5 3.7 73.5 4.4 53 South Seventeen Mile Creek 7.0 13.8 2.0 21.0 3.0 8 Thirteen Mile Creek 1.7 2.7 1.6 5.3 3.1 3 Thirty Mile Creek * 24.9 89.9 3.6 110.8 4.4 45 Tigger Creek 4.5 8.8 2.0 9.7 2.2 8 Twenty Five Mile Creek 4.8 11.9 2.5 17.8 3.7 15 Twenty One Mile Creek 13.4 31.3 2.3 54.0 4.0 51 Twenty Three Mile Creek * 30.5 89.7 2.9 148.7 4.9 107 Upper San Poil River 36.0 75.8 2.1 87.8 2.4 43 West Fork Bungalow Creek 1.9 7.6 4.0 10.6 5.6 7 SPR Deerhorn Creek 5.07 7.9 1.6 18.4 3.6 9 King Creek 3.2 5.3 1.7 13.6 4.3 10 Lime Creek #2 0.2 0.4 1.8 1.1 5.0 2 Lower Gold Creek 10.5 26.3 2.5 36.5 3.5 23 Lower West Fork SPR 11.1 22.3 2.0 33.6 3.0 19 Roaring Creek 3.1 2.8 0.9 7.6 2.5 3 Strawberry Creek 6.7 20.0 3.0 36.8 5.5 31 Upper Gold Creek * 20.3 42.6 2.1 66.6 3.3 34 Upper West Fork SPR 2.3 5.2 2.3 10.6 4.7 13 WMUs * have high or extreme sensitivity with stricter total road density standards. Bolded road densities meet required standards.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Appendix E Stream Habitat Assessment

Stream Date Stream Water Streambank Hydrologic Streamside Extent of Extent of In-Stream Land cover Monitoring Bottom Character- Condition Modification Vegetation Overhead Natural Vegetation & Land use Site Character- istics Canopy Stream patterns istics Cover Bank Cover BRG56A 6/24/06 Cobbly, Low Artificially Culvert Conifers 0-25% 0-25% Other organic Range, pasture bouldery width/depth modified Rerouted channel Small trees, debris ratio Artificially shrubs protected OWI89A 4/23/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, Natural streamside None Grass 0-25% 0-25% Plants growing Range, pasture, road bouldery runs vegetation from bottom degraded Other organic No degradation, debris alteration, erosion KIN087 4/30/07 Gravelly Low Natural streamside Culvert Deciduous 25-50% 25-50% Other organic Range, pasture, road Cobbly, width/depth vegetation Rerouted channel Small trees, debris Primary road, bouldery ratio degraded shrubs highway Residential home site MIL77A 4/30/07 Gravelly Pools, riffles, Natural streamside None Deciduous 25-50% 25-50% Logs, large Forest, grazing Cobbly, runs vegetation Small trees, woody debris Primary road, bouldery High degraded shrubs highway width/depth Banks collapsed, ratio eroded Undercutting bank Widening channel Artificially modified Artificially protected LNR70A 4/27/07 Firm, sandy Pools, riffles, Banks collapsed, Culvert Deciduous 25-50% 25-50% Logs, large Primary road, Gravelly runs eroded woody debris highway High Undercutting bank Other organic Other width/depth Widening channel debris ratio Plants growing from bottom IROF73 4/24/07 Gravelly Low Banks collapsed, Culvert Small trees, 0-25% 0-25% Other organic Forest, grazing width/depth eroded shrubs debris ratio Widening channel

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Stream Date Stream Water Streambank Hydrologic Streamside Extent of Extent of In-Stream Land cover Monitoring Bottom Character- Condition Modification Vegetation Overhead Natural Vegetation & Land use Site Character- istics Canopy Stream patterns istics Cover Bank Cover LOU074 4/24/07 Gravelly Pools, riffles, Natural streamside Culvert Small trees, 0-25% 0-25% Plants growing Forest, grazing Cobbly, runs vegetation shrubs from bottom bouldery degraded Grasses only Artificially modified BUF085 4/26/07 Firm, sandy Low Natural streamside Sediment entering Small trees, 0-25% 0-25% Logs, large Range, pasture Gravelly width/depth vegetation stream shrubs woody debris Wetlands ratio degraded Banks collapsed, eroded Undercutting bank Widening channel JAK061 4/25/07 Cobbly, High Artificially Culvert Small trees, 0-25% 25-50% Residential home bouldery width/depth modified Dam, water shrubs site ratio Artificially restriction Primary road, protected structure highway THIF55 4/27/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, Natural streamside Dam, water Deciduous 25-50% 25-50% Logs, large Range, pasture, road bouldery runs vegetation restriction woody debris Low degraded structure width/depth Banks collapsed, ratio eroded Undercutting bank SPR059 4/25/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, Natural streamside None Deciduous 25-50% 25-50% Primary road, bouldery runs vegetation Small trees, highway High degraded shrubs width/depth Banks collapsed, ratio eroded Undercutting bank Artificially modified Artificially protected NES76A 4/30/07 Firm, sandy High Natural streamside Bridge abutments Deciduous 25-50% 25-50% Logs, large Range, pasture Gravelly width/depth vegetation Small trees, woody debris Other ratio degraded shrubs Plants growing Widening channel from bottom

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Stream Date Stream Water Streambank Hydrologic Streamside Extent of Extent of In-Stream Land cover Monitoring Bottom Character- Condition Modification Vegetation Overhead Natural Vegetation & Land use Site Character- istics Canopy Stream patterns istics Cover Bank Cover PJCF86 4/26/07 Soft, muddy Artificially Culvert Grasses only 0-25% 25-50% Plants growing Residential home modified Dam, water from bottom site Artificially restriction Other organic Primary road, protected structure debris highway STP080 4/30/07 Firm, sandy Pools, riffles, Natural streamside None Small trees, 25-50% 25-50% Logs, large Forest, grazing Cobbly, runs vegetation shrubs woody debris Other, campground bouldery High degraded Other organic Gravelly width/depth Banks collapsed, debris ratio eroded Undercutting bank Widening channel TWT053 4/27/07 Cobbly, High Natural streamside Culvert Small trees, 25-50% 50-75% Forest, roads bouldery width/depth vegetation shrubs ratio degraded Banks collapsed, eroded Widening channel Artificially modified TWF054 4/27/07 Hard, rocky High Undercutting bank Culvert Deciduous, 25-50% 50-75% Logs, large Forest, roads width/depth Widening channel shrubs woody debris Forest, grazing ratio CAC057 4/27/07 Soft, muddy Low No degradation Culvert Conifers 50-75% 50-75% Other organic Forest, roads Firm, sandy width/depth Deciduous debris Primary road, ratio Small trees, highway shrubs Forest, grazing ARMF78 4/26/07 Soft, muddy Pools, riffles, Natural streamside Dam, water Conifers 0-25% 0-25% Logs, large Forest, grazing Firm, sandy runs vegetation restriction Small trees, woody debris Range, pasture degraded structure shrubs Other organic Banks collapsed, Grasses only debris eroded Undercutting bank Widening channel

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Stream Date Stream Water Streambank Hydrologic Streamside Extent of Extent of In-Stream Land cover Monitoring Bottom Character- Condition Modification Vegetation Overhead Natural Vegetation & Land use Site Character- istics Canopy Stream patterns istics Cover Bank Cover SNM051 4/27/07 Gravelly Low Natural streamside Culvert Small trees, 0-25% 0-25% Other organic Range, pasture Cobbly, width/depth vegetation Dam, water shrubs debris Residential home bouldery ratio degraded restriction Grasses only site Artificially structure Primary road, modified Rerouted channel highway Artificially protected RLC87B 4/26/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, No degradation None Small trees, 50-75% 50-75% Plants growing Forest, grazing bouldery runs shrubs from bottom Crops, road JTC065 4/24/07 Firm, sandy Low Banks collapsed, Culvert Conifers 25-50% 25-50% Logs, large Forest, grazing Cobbly, width/depth eroded Small trees, woody debris bouldery ratio Undercutting bank shrubs Gravelly Undercutting bank SPR050 4/25/07 Firm, sandy Pools, riffles, Banks collapsed, Bridge abutments Deciduous 0-25% 25-50% Logs, large Forest, roads runs eroded Small trees, woody debris Primary road, High Undercutting bank shrubs Other organic highway width/depth debris Forest, grazing ratio Plants growing from bottom NNM073 4/25/07 Hard, rocky Pools, riffles, Natural streamside Culvert Small trees, 0-25% 25-50% Other organic Forest, grazing runs vegetation shrubs debris Primary road, High degraded Grasses only highway width/depth Artificially Range, pasture ratio modified Artificially protected BER091 4/25/07 Hard, rocky Pools, riffles, Natural streamside None Small trees, 0-25% 0-25% Other organic Forest, roads runs vegetation shrubs debris Park High degraded width/depth Widening channel ratio

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Stream Date Stream Water Streambank Hydrologic Streamside Extent of Extent of In-Stream Land cover Monitoring Bottom Character- Condition Modification Vegetation Overhead Natural Vegetation & Land use Site Character- istics Canopy Stream patterns istics Cover Bank Cover SPR047 4/25/07 Hard, rocky High Undercutting bank Bridge abutments Deciduous 25-50% 50-75% Logs, large Forest, roads width/depth Artificially Rerouted channel Small trees, woody debris Primary road, ratio modified shrubs Other organic highway Artificially debris protected Plants growing from bottom NSC081 4/30/07 Firm, sandy Pools, riffles, Natural streamside None Deciduous 25-50% 25-50% Logs, large Forest, grazing Gravelly runs vegetation Small trees, woody debris High degraded shrubs Other organic width/depth Banks collapsed, debris ratio eroded Widening channel JMC071 4/25/07 Gravelly Pools, riffles, Banks collapsed, None Deciduous 25-50% 50-75% Logs, large Range, pasture, road Cobbly, runs eroded Small trees, woody debris bouldery High Widening channel shrubs Other organic width/depth Grasses only debris ratio COP067 4/24/07 Firm, sandy Low Undercutting bank Culvert Conifers 75-100% 25-50% Logs, large Forest, grazing width/depth Small trees, woody debris ratio shrubs WES045 4/27/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, No degradation None Conifers 25-50% 75-100% Logs, large Forest, roads bouldery runs woody debris WES048 4/27/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, Widening channel Bridge abutments Conifers 50-75% 50-75% Logs, large Forest, grazing bouldery runs Deciduous woody debris Primary road, Small trees, highway shrubs Residential home site GLD84C 4/27/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, Widening channel None Conifers 50-75% 75-100% Logs, large Forest, roads bouldery runs No degradation Deciduous woody debris Small trees, shrubs

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Stream Date Stream Water Streambank Hydrologic Streamside Extent of Extent of In-Stream Land cover Monitoring Bottom Character- Condition Modification Vegetation Overhead Natural Vegetation & Land use Site Character- istics Canopy Stream patterns istics Cover Bank Cover LOS040 4/26/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, Natural streamside None Conifers 0-25% 0-25% Plants growing Range, pasture bouldery runs vegetation Deciduous from bottom High degraded Small trees, Other organic width/depth Banks collapsed, shrubs debris ratio eroded Undercutting bank Widening channel HADF36 4/26/07 Gravelly Pools, riffles, Undercutting bank Culvert Grasses only 0-25% 75-100% Plants growing Range, pasture runs from bottom Low width/depth ratio TRA33A 4/24/07 Cobbly, Pools, riffles, Artificially Culvert Conifers 25-50% 75-100% Logs, large Forest, roads bouldery runs modified Deciduous woody debris Forest, grazing Artificially Small trees, protected shrubs OMK009 4/25/07 Gravelly Pools, riffles, No degradation Culvert Deciduous 0-25% 75-100% Logs, large Range, pasture runs Bridge abutment Small trees, woody debris Primary road, Sediment entering shrubs highway stream Residential home site Commercial/industri al OMKF12 4/25/07 Cobbly, High Undercutting bank bridge abutment Conifers 25-50% 0-25% Logs, large Range, pasture, road bouldery width/depth Artificially Small trees, woody debris Primary road, ratio modified shrubs Plants growing highway from bottom SMC007 4/24/07 Gravelly Pools, riffles, Natural streamside Culvert Deciduous 25-50% 50-75% Logs, large Range, pasture runs vegetation woody debris degraded KARF01 4/24/07 Firm, sandy Pools, riffles, Undercutting bank Culvert Deciduous 75-100% 25-50% Logs, large Residential home runs woody debris site NAS01A 4/24/07 Gravelly Pools, riffles, No degradation None Deciduous 0-25% 0-25% Plants growing Range, pasture runs Small trees, from bottom shrubs

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011 Appendix F 1998 Unified Watershed Assessment Summary

Data Resources: . Watershed Sensitivity Analysis and Current and Historic Conditions Report, IRMP Report, Walt Hunner, Chuck Jones and Steve Rolph, 1996. . Nutrient, Primary Productivity, and Alkalinity Data of Colville Reservation Lakes from Sept. 1986 to Sept. 1994, Edmund Broch and Judith Loescher, Dept. of Zoology, WSU 1995. . Environmental Trust Dept. water quality data. . Stream surveys performed by Fish and Wildlife Dept., IRMP Report, Chuck Jones, 1996-98. . Owhi Lake Watershed IRMP, 1995. . Six Mile Creek Watershed IRMP, 1994. . Selected Natural Resources 3P watershed evaluations, 1995 & 1996. . Department of Ecology ambient water quality data, 1985 to 1996. . Department of Ecology Washington State Water Quality Assessment, 1994; Data and References, 1995. . U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report on sediment contamination in Lake Roosevelt, 1992. . Other published and unpublished reports, data, and correspondence relating to Lake Roosevelt water quality. . Water quality and flow parameters from over 100 streams since 1992. . Water quality and some selected sediment analysis for some major reservation lakes.

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Impairment Types: . Unknown Toxicity . Thermal Modifications . Pesticides . Flow Alterations . Priority Organics . Habitat Alterations . Non-Priority Organics . Fecal coliform/Other Pathogen . Metals Indicators . Ammonia . Turbidity . Chlorine . Algae . Nutrients . Aquatic Macrophytes . pH . Exotic Species . Siltation and Sediment . Dissolved Gas . Dissolved Oxygen/Organic Enrichment

Impairment Sources: . Combined Sewer Overflows . Hazardous Waste . Agriculture, Unspecified . Hydromodification/Habitat . Non-irrigated Crop Production Modification, Unspecified . Irrigated Crop Production . Channelization . Specialty Crop Production . Dredging . Grazing Livestock . Dam Construction . Feedlots . Flow Regulation/Modification/Water . Aquaculture Withdrawal . Animal Holding/Management . Riparian Vegetation Removal Area . Streambank . Forest Management Modification/Destabilization . Logging Roads . Drainage/Filling of Wetlands . Construction, Unspecified . Other Sources, Unspecified . Highway/Road/Bridge . Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks Construction . Highway Maintenance and Runoff . Land Development . Spills . Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers . In-place Contaminants . Resource Extraction, Unspecified . Natural Sources . Mining . Recreational Activities . Mine Tailings . Upstream Impoundment . Land Disposal, Unspecified . Non-Point Source, Unspecified . Wastewater . Non-Point Sources, Overall . Landfills/Dumps . Other Sources, Overall . Onsite Wastewater systems . Removal of Beaver (Septic Tanks)

Colville Confederated Tribes Water Pollution Nonpoint Source Assessment Report January 2011

Impaired Water Bodies: . Elbow Lake . North Twin Lake . Upper Wilmont Creek . Barnaby Creek . South Twin Lake . Lower Wilmont Creek . Cobbs Creek . Round Lake . Canteen Creek . Grizzly Creek . Beaver Dam Creek . Cook Creek . John’s Mtn. . Boss Creek . Gibson Creek . Upper Lynx Creek . Granite Creek . Jones Creek . Lower Lynx Creek . Cornstalk Creek . Lower Nine Mile Creek . Onion Creek . Upper Stranger Creek . S. Fork Nine Mile Creek . Sitdown Creek . Lower Stranger Creek . Moses Creek . Stall Creek . Fish Lake . Haden Creek . N. Fork Hall Creek . Falls Creek . Okanogan River . Upper Hall Creek . Little Wilmont Creek . Lake Rufus Woods . Lower Hall Creek . Nez Perce Creek . Wells Pool . Olds Creek . Manila Creek . Lost Creek . Pollock Creek . Meadow Creek . Loony Creek . Wells Creek . Silver Creek . Sheep Creek . Six Mile Creek . Tolman Creek . Omak Creek . Three Mile Creek . Gold Lake . Mission Creek . Cody Lake . Upper Gold Creek . Stapaloop Creek . Anderson Creek . Lower Gold Creek . Clark Creek . Bear Creek . Deerhorn Creek . Trail Creek . Bridge Creek . King Creek . Swimptkin Creek . Nineteen Mile Creek . Strawberry Creek . Wanacut Creek . North Nanamkin . Lower West Fork SPR . Haley Creek Creek . Great Western Lake . Camp Seven Creek . South Nanamkin . Armstrong Creek . Mill Creek #2 Creek . Kinkaid Creek . Jim Creek . Seventeen Mile . Mill # 1 Creek . Tunk Creek Creek . Nespelem River . Omak Lake . Thirty Mile Creek . Northstar Creek . Big Goose Lake . Thirteen Mile Creek . Parmenter Creek . Coyote Creek . Upper San Poil . Smith Creek . Nason Creek River . Stepstone Creek . No Name Creek . Alice Creek . Whitelaw Creek . Kartar Creek . Brush Creek . Owhi Lake . Smith Condon Creek . Cache Creek . Joe Moses Creek . Soap Lake . Copper Creek . Owhi Creek . Duley Lake . Empire Creek . Lower Little Nespelem . Little Goose Lake . Iron Creek River . Penley Lake . Jack Creek . Buffalo Lake . Friedlander Lake . John Tom Creek . McGinnis Lake . Hauan Lake . Lime Creek #1 . Buffalo Creek . Long Lake . Louie Creek #1 . Poker Joe Creek . Lake Roosevelt . Lower San Poil . Peter Dan Creek River . Crawfish Lake