A Review of Water Quality Assessment Methodologies for Tribal CWA-106

Programs (Phase II)

Report date: June 30, 2020

A review of documents from tribes nationwide that are implementing Clean Water Act Section 106 programs to identify how water quality assessments and use decisions about their waters are made. This project was completed by the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) at Northern Arizona University under a cooperative agreement from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The findings of this Phase II review are summarized in the following report, which also includes observations and recommendations based on a synthesis with the prior, Phase I review. Phase II was conducted August-December 2019.

Developed by the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) Northern Arizona University (NAU)

nau.edu/itep

Primary Author: Lydia Scheer (Project Director, ITEP) Contributors: Josephine Kamkoff (Researcher, ITEP) & Jennifer Williams (Sr. Program Coordinator, ITEP)

Disclaimer: This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under assistance agreement X7-

83924001 to Northern Arizona University (NAU). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the EPA, nor does the

EPA endorse trade names or recommend the use of commercial products mentioned in this document.

i

Executive Summary Water quality assessments are an essential component of sound water quality monitoring

programs under the EPA’s Clean Water Act Section 106 (CWA§106); they provide the basis for

determining the attainment status and usability of the nation’s waters. Tribal water quality

monitoring programs collect data and assess the quality of their waters based on the designated uses, protection goals, and management objectives they identify. To compare their

data for assessment purposes, tribes may adopt EPA-approved water quality standards that

have been established for other jurisdictions, or may seek approval to implement their own

standards, either under their inherent authority, or formally approved by EPA to be upheld by

the tribe. These standards help tribes make decisions about the quality of their waters in order

to determine progress towards the goals they identify that address the water quality needs and concerns relevant to their communities. As tribes continue to expand their capacity for water

quality monitoring and assessment programs across the nation, implementing robust water

quality assessments that use relevant standards for decision-making is crucial strengthening

tribal sovereignty.

In order to better understand how tribes are reporting decisions about their waters, a review of

19 recent tribal water quality assessment methodologies was conducted to identify the

presence or absence of specific elements recommended by the EPA for tribal CWA §106

programs. The Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) at Northern Arizona

University (NAU), under a cooperative agreement funded by the US EPA, completed the study.

As a result of this review, EPA and tribal stakeholders will have an increased awareness of the ways tribes are characterizing their methodologies in order to inform future training materials

and resources for tribes. This effort is considered “Phase II” of a two-part study of tribal water

quality assessment methodologies (Phase I was limited to tribes in an earlier pilot project).

Tribal water quality programs take many forms, and due to the unique issues and constraints faced by tribes, which can vary by region, care should be taken to avoid drawing general

conclusions about the status of tribal water quality programs broadly. Furthermore, some

regions are disproportionately represented due to variations in response rates, however, the

documents reviewed for this report support the conclusions made herein, and this study can

inform future efforts to better understand the depth and breadth of tribal water quality

monitoring and assessment activities.

The information presented in this report is a summary of details identified in tribal documents

provided by the EPA to ITEP for this study; no comparative evaluation of the documents’

contents was conducted for this review. No measurements were made or data generated, and

all documents reviewed were previously submitted to the EPA as a part of tribal CWA grant requirements. This report was not developed to be used in relation to determining funding

amounts or eligibility, statutory authority, compliance status, or any other regulatory activity

or action; the findings presented herein are relative to the documents reviewed at the time of

this study, and are to be used for informational purposes only.

Summary of Findings This report provides an overview of the contents of tribal water quality assessment reports, including methodologies documented by 19 tribes from seven of the ten EPA regions. Tribes are

monitoring these waters and assessing the data to determine the quality of the waters that

sustain their lands and communities; most or all of the tribes in the sample generally:

identified the full extent of tribal waters and used maps or visuals as a part of their

water atlas.

ii

monitored their waters for all nine “core” parameters and some monitored for additional

parameters if they had identified a need.

indicated they are monitoring to collect baseline data.

discussed their network design or monitoring strategy to describe sampling activities,

but did not discuss reviewing or evaluating them to make changes.

identified tribal protection goals or management objectives.

identified designated uses for tribal waters.

referenced the standards they used for comparing against tribal data, including

identification of the specific thresholds used.

reported using labs or other contractors to support programs; some are also

collaborating with outside entities.

reported assessing all monitoring sites and described their specific methodologies for

assessing and interpreting data, including statistical analysis and decision-making

criteria.

More than half of the tribes in the sample reported making decisions regarding a water body

meeting its designated use or goals based on their assessments; some tribes also identified

cultural or traditional uses. While several of the tribes in the sample indicated they have

observed impairments or other declines in water quality, none are formally listing impaired

waters or developing anti-degradation plans for them.

Conclusion Overall, tribal documents reviewed indicate tribes are conducting assessments of their waters according to the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance, and are continuing to build capacity to manage

their water resources and meet their programs’ goals and objectives. To ensure that tribal

assessments are of maximum use to decision-makers, there are several recommendations

included, based on the documents reviewed for this study, which can inform best practices for

tribal assessment reports overall. The EPA and other partners can also use this summary to

inform future training and technical support activities that are relevant to the needs and priorities of tribal programs. Such efforts will help foster robust program activities and

strategies for managing tribal waters that enhance tribal sovereignty.

iii

Contents Executive Summary i Background 1 Approach 2

Procedure 2 References and Information Sources 2 Use of Review and Limitations 3

Summary of Findings 4 1. Water Atlas 4 2. Monitoring and Assessments 5

A. Parameters 5 B. Monitoring Strategies & Network Design 6 C. Tribal Goals and Objectives 7 D. Types of Designated Uses 7 E. Water Quality Standards 8 F. Working with Outside Organizations 9 G. Laboratory and Contractual Support 10 H. Data Management and Interpretation 10

3. Tribal Concerns and Decision-Making 11 Recommendations and Conclusion 12

REFERENCES R1-21

Appendices: APPENDIX 1: Memo to EPA Requesting Tribal Water Quality Assessments

APPENDIX 2: Guided Review Questions - Phase II of Tribal WQAR Study

APPENDIX 3: A Review of Water Quality Assessment Methodologies of the “ATTAINS

Tribal Pilot Workgroup” – Executive Summary

Acronyms Used in this Report: ATTAINS Assessment, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking and Implementation

System

CWA Clean Water Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GIS Geographical Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

ITEP Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

TAS Treatment as a State

USGS US Geological Survey

WQAR Water Quality Assessment Report

WQS Water Quality Standard(s)

1 of 18

Background The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) supports the development of water quality programs for states, territories, and tribes through the provision of grants,

guidance, and technical support under the Clean Water Act Section 106 (CWA §106), for the

purposes of understanding, assessing, and preserving the nation’s water resources. Currently,

of the 574 federally-recognized tribal governments, 278 tribes have been approved for

“Treatment as a State (TAS)” status to be considered eligible for funding under the CWA§106 to implement water pollution control programs for their lands1.

Water quality monitoring and assessment activities are the cornerstone of pollution control

efforts, as they produce the data and information used to determine whether the standards

identified for a water body are met. These assessments include specific methodologies that describe the process used to make such determinations, in particular to decide if the water quality supports the designated use identified for a water body—uses identified by the tribe

based on their management plans and protection goals. They not only inform tribal and other

stakeholders of the relative quality of the waters they manage, but also help determine the

effectiveness of restoration and protection activities for future planning and decision-making.

In order to better understand how tribes are reporting decisions about their waters, a review of current tribal water quality assessment methodologies was conducted that sought to identify

the presence or absence of specific elements recommended for tribal CWA §106 programs. The

Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) at Northern Arizona University (NAU),

under a cooperative agreement funded by the US EPA, completed the study.

Phase I vs. Phase II This effort is considered “Phase II” of a two-part initiative aimed at characterizing tribal water

quality assessment methodologies; “Phase I” looked only at tribes who volunteered to be part of

a pilot workgroup that was developed to test tribes’ use of the EPA’s ATTAINS2 system for reporting water quality decisions. The findings of the first phase are detailed in A Review of Water Quality Assessment Methodologies of the “ATTAINS Tribal Pilot Workgroup” available from

ITEP (see Appendix 3 for the Executive Summary from the report). That report provided

recommendations for EPA and tribal members of the pilot on areas where further development may be needed, based on observations about the pilot tribes’ assessment methodologies.

Phase I looked at information related to assessment methodologies that tribes had documented

in various formats, which was reviewed based on four key elements recommended by the EPA

to tribes in the pilot for reporting their decisions using the ATTAINS system. In general, Phase I

of the effort revealed that tribal pilot members had established a solid foundation for conducting water quality assessments, including submitting their support decisions in

ATTAINS, and that some improvements could be made in the clarity and completeness of both

tribal methodologies, as well as the guidance and templates provided to tribes by the EPA.

In order to expand the review to a wider cross-section of tribes, this second, “Phase II,” portion

examines the methodologies from tribal water quality programs that had not participated in the

pilot, and therefore is not focused on use of ATTAINS. Instead, Phase II looks at the Water Quality Assessment Reports (WQARs) that tribes had previously submitted to the EPA regions

for their CWA §106 grant requirements, and synthesizes those findings in the summary report

below. Taken together, these report scan be used to inform the development training materials,

technical support and resources that build tribal capacity for conducting water quality

assessments.

1 https://www.epa.gov/water-pollution-control-section-106-grants/tribal-grants-under-section-106-clean-water-act

2 EPA’s Assessment, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS)

2 of 18

Approach The US EPA provides guidance documents and references for tribal water quality programs implementing CWA §106 programs, including recommended information and steps for

assessment activities, as they develop their capacity in water quality management. The EPA’s Final Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act for Fiscal Years 2007 and Beyond (“EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance”) was prepared for tribal

programs as they develop their capacity in water quality monitoring and pollution control; the

EPA developed several other supplementary resources for tribes in relation to conducting monitoring and assessment activities which are collectively referred to herein as the “EPA’s

Tribal 106 Guidance.”3 These documents informed the approach for this study and are

included as references for this review. In order to ensure that the results from Phase II of the

study were replicable for future reviews of tribal assessments, the methodology used for

reviewing tribal documents was developed based on the information outlined in “Appendix A” of the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance. “Appendix A” lists steps and recommendations for tribal water

quality assessment reporting, and provided a basic framework to inform the approach used for

this review.

Procedure ITEP worked with EPA project staff to develop communication protocols for requesting tribal

reports from EPA, including a memo outlining the nature and details of the request, options for

participation, deadlines and project contacts (see Appendix 1). As needed, additional follow-up

and communication was provided to EPA staff to obtain the requested information. ITEP developed a methodology to conduct the review and summarize results, using the EPA’s Tribal

106 Guidance as a framework. Between August-November 2019, ITEP worked with EPA CWA

coordinators to collect electronic copies via email of current WQARs (along with any supporting

documentation) from tribes across the US. ITEP staff organized and reviewed all documentation

received, along with secondary references as appropriate, to determine which recommended

elements were included; no evaluation of accuracy was made regarding contents, organization, data, methodologies, or other information received. The information identified by the review

protocol was noted in the documents and captured using Qualtrics® information management

system for ease of summarizing the findings (see Appendix 2). Additional information was

organized into spreadsheets for further organization and analysis. These findings are

summarized, along with additional observations and recommendations, in the following report.

References and Information Sources Tribal programs administering CWA §106 grants typically submit WQARs at least bi-annually,

as part of the terms of their grant obligations. Tribal WQARs and other documents used for this

review (see References) had previously been submitted by the tribe to the EPA regional office as

part of their regular CWA §106 program activities. Therefore, ITEP worked directly with the

EPA’s CWA tribal programs in each region to request tribal documents for this effort. Regional

staff were asked to provide copies of the most recent WQARs or related documentation via email that described the tribal program’s monitoring strategies and quality assurance activities

(including indicators or parameters assessed), goals and objectives or designated uses,

assessment methodologies, and water quality standards that specify thresholds used to

compare the data. Some tribal documents referenced other documents or sources, such as

state water quality management program; if the reference was not included, it was sought out

through on online internet search to find the most recent version available from the source.

Currently, 278 tribe have been approved to be eligible for funding for CWA §106 grants to help

manage their waters. Figure 1 shows the number of tribes by EPA region that are included in

the sample based on documents received from EPA for this review, compared to the number of

3 See References section for documents included in the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance

3 of 18

tribes in the region with CWA §106 programs funded by the EPA. Seven of the ten EPA regions

responded to the request by providing documents to ITEP from 19 tribes; no explanation was offered for the low response rates from EPA Regions 8 and 9. EPA Region 6 did not submit

additional documentation for Phase II due to participating in the ATTAINS Tribal Pilot project

and Phase I of this review effort (see Appendix 3); EPA Region 7 did not submit a response. It

should be noted that EPA Region 3 did not have any federally recognized tribes with CWA §106

programs at the time of this review.

Figure 1. Count of tribes with assessment reports included in this review, compared to number of

tribal CWA §106 grantees in each EPA region. (*provided by EPA in 2018).

Use of Review and Limitations This summary review can be used to inform readers about the nature and type of activities being reported, as they relate to CWA §106 monitoring and assessment activities for the tribes

in the sample pool only. Additional considerations are also included for how the EPA can

further support tribes to build capacity to manage their water quality resources.

This information will not be used in relation to funding eligibility, standards determinations,

compliance status, or any other regulatory activity or action. Due to the limited size of the sample pool and disproportionate distribution by EPA region, the information in this report

should not be used to extrapolate or make broad assumptions about activities conducted by

tribes nationally, or to in any way represent tribes beyond those in the sample.

Increasingly more comprehensive information is expected as the tribe advances its water quality program activities, however, certain basic elements are identified for all programs to

address when reporting water quality decisions. Using the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance as a

reference, ITEP staff analyzed tribal documents to locate these elements and synthesized the

details of those findings into the summary of results below. This information can be used in

conjunction with the information from Phase I of the review effort, which was specific to the

4 of 18

tribal pilot workgroup’s use of ATTAINS for submitting for reporting decisions from

assessments. In general, these findings described how tribal programs in the sample pool were reporting water quality monitoring and assessment activities, and how they made decisions

about their waters.

Summary of Findings This report provides an overview of the contents of tribal water quality assessment reports and

related documentation that includes assessment methodologies documented by the 19 tribes

in the sample. The report is organized according to the following areas:

1. Water Atlas: How tribes describe their water resources.

2. Monitoring and Assessment: How tribes describe the results and methods of

their water quality monitoring and assessment activities. 3. Tribal Concerns and Decision-Making: How tribes identify concerns and

determine causes of impairment to manage and protect their waters.

Each of the numbered sections below presents summary information identified during a review

of the tribal documents received, including the primary elements described by EPA in their

guidance for tribal programs; for ease of reference, the sections are organized around the information presented in “Appendix A” of the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance 4. A discussion of the

overall findings is included, along with recommendations for how to use this information.

Note: While the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance describes various factors that it uses to characterize tribes as having “fundamental, intermediate and mature” programs, this review aims to avoid categorization of tribal programs in this way because there are no definitive criteria or designated requirements stipulated. Due to the complexity of tribal programs, some could be undertaking a mix of “fundamental” and “intermediate/mature” activities. Instead, the primary elements of a tribal water quality assessment, as recommended by the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance, are

addressed in the sections below, with more noteworthy observations included where appropriate.

1. Water Atlas An atlas of tribal waters is considered to be the full extent of water resources under tribal management. The EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance recommends that tribal assessment reports

include an atlas of their waters that includes the estimated number of stream miles, lake acres,

wetland acres, or estuarine square miles under their management, and may include tables,

charts, maps or other details that describe their waters, including information on shared

jurisdiction or management responsibilities.

All but one of the tribes sampled identified the full extent of tribal waters with a list or table,

and most included a map or other visual as a part of their water atlas. Most identified their

water types with words such as river, lake, wetland, groundwater, etc. and typically chose

descriptive identifiers or names, rather than relying on a numerical or coded identification

system. One tribe described its waters using native names and allotment parcels alongside standard identification data. One tribe listed all monitoring locations as being under state

jurisdiction, but reported they are monitored by the tribe because those waters drain into tribal

jurisdiction.

Due to the complex nature of tribal environmental legal authorities, in particular where water resources have shared jurisdiction or other unique management circumstances, tribes can

clearly document the full extent of those resources that are under the tribe’s purview to fully

inform future decision-making for environmental protection efforts.

4 See References section for documents included in the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance

5 of 18

2. Monitoring and Assessments Under the CWA §106 program, tribes take measurements and monitor water quality

parameters to gather data in order to assess the condition of their waters. These measurements

might include using a probe to determine temperature, or sending a sample to be analyzed in a lab for specific contaminants, such as metals or bacteria; they may collect biological data about

aquatic species or observational data about turbidity. The data collected is then assessed to

determine whether the tribe can use a water body for its specific designated purpose (e.g.

swimming, fishing). Baseline monitoring results and supplementary assessments of the quality

of the water are used to help tribes to determine progress towards their goals and objectives.

The EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance recommends that tribes submit assessment reports for their

water quality monitoring activities that address certain primary elements, and include

information respective to each tribe’s capacity. These elements are identified as:

the number of miles, acres, or square miles managed;

parameters monitored; monitoring strategies, including frequency and network design;

applicable water quality indicators, tribal goals and objectives, or standards;

coordination or collaboration with other organizations;

nature of laboratory support;

how data are interpreted and managed.

Additionally, tribes should discuss their monitoring results in water quality assessment

reports, as they relate to the tribe’s goals and objectives, along with any issues or concerns

identified, and how that information will be used for decision-making purposes. It is expected

that a tribe’s assessment activities will become increasingly comprehensive as its monitoring

program progresses. For purposes of this review, the focus was on identifying whether the tribal reports included these primary elements.

A. Parameters Parameters monitored are based on the goals and objectives of the tribal program so that,

by assessing the results against a threshold, the tribe can determine if the designated uses

are met. The EPA identifies nine basic or “core” parameters that are recommended for all

CWA programs to assess, they are: dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, turbidity, E. coli or enterococci, macroinvertebrate data, and

basic habitat information.

Most tribes in the sample generally monitored their waters for all nine parameters; some

monitored for additional parameters if they had identified potential pollution sources or

other areas of concern. Most tribes in the sample reported collecting data on at least seven of the core parameters; one-third of the tribes in the sample are collecting data on all nine,

including habitat and macroinvertebrates. Typically, tribes in the sample identified the

parameters monitored at each site. When sites were not monitored, it was due to issues

reported with planning or availability, such as access to an ephemeral stream. Figure 2

shows a count of the tribes in the sample who monitored core parameters.

6 of 18

Figure 2. Count of core parameters monitored by tribes in the sample.

Whenever possible, and as tribal program objectives and protection goals for their waters

determine it is needed, tribes can collect data on all core parameters to ensure a depiction

of the tribe’s water quality that is comparable to other programs across the nation.

B. Monitoring Strategies & Network Design A monitoring network design specifies locations and methods for monitoring and sampling

such that they will allow the tribe to meet its monitoring objectives; this includes frequency

of monitoring needed for meeting data quality objectives, as well as the methodologies used

for assessing the monitoring data collected. The EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance recommends

that monitoring strategies and network designs be considered when evaluating results to determine whether or not they need changed or updated in order to reach tribal goals.

All of the tribes in the sample discussed their network design, or referenced their

monitoring strategy to describe sampling at multiple sites, however none of the documents

discussed specific activities for reviewing or evaluating their monitoring networks or

strategies. Most tribes sampled reported they are conducting monitoring to establish a baseline for their waters. One tribe reported progressing from baseline monitoring after

several years to conducting targeted monitoring efforts to focus on a problem identified as a

result of their assessments of the initial data. All tribes in the sample specified a monitoring

schedule for each parameter, and most of them indicated a specific monitoring schedule for

parameters by season. Monitoring locations were identified in tribal reports using various methods, as depicted in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3. Monitoring site identification method by tribes in the sample.

7 of 18

To complete detailed descriptions of their monitoring locations, tribes can use GPS and/or

GIS tools to develop maps and catalogs that depict the full extent of the waters they

manage. As appropriate, especially in situations where management responsibilities are

shared with other entities, tribes can use watershed designations and/or Hydrologic Unit

Codes (HUCs) to standardize monitoring site identifications.

C. Tribal Goals and Objectives Goals are set to protect the quality of a tribe’s waters so they can maintain their designated

uses; objectives are strategies or activities aimed at managing impacted waters or problem areas so they can attain the quality desired for their designated uses. A water’s designated

use is a description of how the water will be managed for its intended purpose, in order to

maintain and protect its quality. Tribes are encouraged to set goals and objectives that

reflect the needs and values of their communities, which will guide their program’s

priorities and actions.

All of the tribes in the sample identified protection goals or management objectives

regarding their water bodies. Most of the tribes in the sample identified designated uses for each site, including goals and objectives that were site-specific; some identified goals and

objectives that applied to all waters. All tribes in the sample reported assessing all

monitoring sites, and most described specific methodologies for assessing data, including

statistical analysis and decision-making criteria.

As tribal assessment reports may be referenced by those outside of the tribe, including

other water quality management stakeholders, tribes can articulate the goals and objectives

of their program so as to identify areas of concern and highlight the value of their water

resources in order to provide a clear picture of their protection and management activities.

D. Types of Designated Uses Designated uses are one of the cornerstones of Water Quality Standards; they specify the

purpose for the water, outlining goals for restoration and describing baseline conditions

required for maintenance of quality, as well as steps to prevent future decline. The

designated use informs which parameters are selected for monitoring a water body. For instance, if a water is designated for swimming, it is tested for E. coli; so that people do not

become ill from using the water. Tribes often set goals and objectives related to helping them preserve or reclaim waters that are important to their traditional and cultural uses,

and which are vital for protecting tribal lifeways.

Almost all tribes in the sample identified designated uses for their water bodies, roughly

split between a focus on protecting clean waters and addressing known issues or problems. The most common uses identified by tribes in the sample focused on uses related to fish

consumption/propagation and habitat protection, along with recreational uses. Cultural or

traditional uses were indicated in some documents provided and were typically related to

activities such as: collection of medicinal plants, travel by canoe, harvest of food, or

religious/ceremonial purposes. “Other Uses” identified in the documents that were not

related to cultural or ceremonial uses were related to industrial/commercial activities, navigation, aesthetics, groundwater recharge, storm-water runoff, collection of mine

tailings, and hydrologic power generation.

Figure 4 shows the number of tribes in the sample who assessed parameters associated

with a specific designated use or goal (each use is counted once per tribe regardless of how many waters have the designation). If the tribe identified multiple designated uses, each of

8 of 18

those is counted once for that tribe. For example, if a tribe uses a water for swimming and

fishing for food, then “recreation” and “fish consumption” are both counted.

Figure 4. Designated uses identified by tribes in the sample.

As many tribal water quality management efforts are intended to protect tribal lifeways and

cultural resources as a primary focus of their overall goals, for example preserving native

plants and traditional food sources, tribes can consider how identifying certain uses for their waters will help determine objectives for accomplishing those goals. The development

of specific and appropriate methodologies relevant to tribal uses can allow for assessment

of the impacts to tribal water resources that are more applicable to tribal communities.

E. Water Quality Standards The purpose of Water Quality Standards is to protect, through restoration and maintenance

activities, the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of US waters. They describe the goals for protecting a water body based on its use. They are comprised of thresholds for

each parameter that specify the acceptable values or narrative criteria used for comparing

data to the standard. Standards also include anti-degradation policies that are aimed at

restoring impaired waters so the standard can be attained. Tribes may opt to take a non-

regulatory approach to water quality protection, choosing to rely on existing standards from neighboring tribes or states for purposes of determining water quality. Tribes undertaking a

regulatory approach to water quality management can establish tribally-implemented

standards under their own authority, or may work towards obtaining EPA approval for

tribal standards under the authority provided in CWA.

Most of the tribes in the sample referenced the standards for comparing against tribal data, including identification of the specific thresholds used (Figure 5); three tribes did not

specify this information in the documents provided by the EPA. Two tribes in the sample

reported using their own tribally implemented water quality standards. Fourteen tribes in

the sample reported using EPA approved standards (either cited as from the EPA or a

state); several of these tribes referenced multiple authorities for their water quality standards, including other non-EPA sources used (for example, US Geological Survey and

research/literature reviews).

As Water Quality Standards are recognized to be a primary element of water quality

assessments, tribes can ensure their assessments are sound by including details regarding

the specific standards referenced, and how they are used to inform decision-making.

9 of 18

Figure 5. Water quality standards cited by tribes in the sample.

Authorities that were identified by tribal documents for Water Quality Standards referenced

included:

Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

Seminole Tribe of Florida

State of Idaho

State of Michigan

US EPA

US EPA Ecoregion IX

Washington State Department of Ecology

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

F. Working with Outside Organizations Collaborations and partnerships are crucial to successful water quality and watershed

management, particularly considering the complexities of geographic and political

boundaries. Due to their unique status, tribes often share management responsibilities

with other jurisdictions, and therefore must rely on coordination with others to manage

their waters. Many tribes work to protect their environmental resources through a combination of mandatory and voluntary activities, which may be undertaken in

collaboration with outside entities to help them reach mutual goals. Assessment reports

should specify where outside entities have had a role in data collection, management, or

analysis, and as appropriate, reference their quality assurance activities and respective

authorities for water quality management.

10 of 18

Activities such as monitoring and sample collection, data analysis, or sharing results with

the public and with decision-makers are examples of ways tribes in the sample described their coordination efforts with outside organizations. Examples of collaborations or

partnerships discussed in the tribal documents reviewed included:

collaboration with multiple entities to assist with data collection, management, and

analysis activities, including other federal and local agencies;

coordinating with a volunteer organization collect macroinvertebrate data;

working with a technical group from a tribal consortium to collect low-flow data.

As tribes seek to accomplish their objectives and undertake data collection, management,

or analysis activities, they can benefit from exploring collaborations and partnerships with outside entities. Such partnerships can be especially useful to tribes conducting non-

regulatory activities, including water quality assessments, as they help stakeholders

identify and implement successful strategies to address shared water quality concerns.

G. Laboratory and Contractual Support Specialized technical expertise, including laboratory analyses, can be conducted

independently under the management of the water quality program, or may be handled by a third party contractor. Tribes that are developing their internal capacity often rely on

third parties to support technical aspects of the project, including private contractors and

laboratories. Assessment reports should specify the nature of the laboratory support or

contractor-provided services that are utilized by the tribal program, and where appropriate,

reference their quality assurance activities and any decision-making roles they play.

Three-fourths of the tribes in the sample reported that a third-party (eg. laboratory,

contractor) was involved in supporting their data collection, management, or analysis

activities. Examples included: providing macroinvertebrate data, conducting DNA tests on E. coli, bacteria DNA testing, and data analysis services. All of the third-parties activities,

including for quality assurance methods and decision-making roles, were specified in the

documents where relevant.

As tribal programs become more established, they can work to build capacity for technical

activities related to sampling and analysis to reduce reliance on outside contractors.

H. Data Management and Interpretation Documenting the data management and interpretation activities for water quality

monitoring results is imperative for sound assessment reports. The EPA’s Tribal 106

Guidance recommends tribes include a summary of the results from tribal monitoring

activities, including a discussion of how data is stored and managed, and how it is analyzed

and interpreted to identify issues or potential sources of impact. Assessment decisions

should be made with the best available information, and should consider outside

information sources and supporting data if possible.

Tribes in the sample generally depicted their data management and interpretation activities

by discussing how they share or exchange data with outside entities—about half reported

that they compared data from their sites to data from externally managed sites during the

same time frame. They generally specified the types of data that were used for assessments,

including relevant data quality objectives and rules for data use and/or censorship; where relevant, they noted issues as a result of reviewing their data and identified the actions

taken to correct or report these issues. Tribes in the sample typically discussed general

concerns or issues observed as a result of their monitoring and assessment activities,

including identifying potential pollutant sources and downstream impacts, and

documenting improvements and/or declines in water quality over time.

11 of 18

Tribes in the sample used varying types of statistical analyses or other summary

observations to characterize their monitoring data. Figure 6 depicts the types of analyses conducted by tribes in the sample for purposes of assessing their waters; if multiple

methods were indicated, they are represented in each category.

Figure 6. Statistical summaries used by tribes in the sample for assessment methodologies.

Tribes can conduct robust assessments that are comparable to those conducted by other

jurisdictions by carefully documenting their data management and interpretation activities,

including how data are analyzed for assessment purposes and decision-making.

3. Tribal Concerns and Decision-Making Water quality assessments can be used to help tribes identify areas of concern, inform actions

for resolving water quality issues important to the tribe, and make decisions about the future.

Water Quality Assessment Reports should discuss the uses and parameters assessed by the tribe, how the tribe interprets these assessments to make decisions about managing and

protecting their waters, including the methodologies for comparing data. Describing the issues

identified, including possible sources or other impacts, is an important element of the

assessment report, particularly when documenting changes observed over time. If a tribe’s

goals or objectives change, or when the monitoring and assessment information indicate a need

for them to change (for instance, when an impairment is identified), tribes should review and evaluate their monitoring program, including monitoring objectives and network design, and

may need to adjust their management strategies accordingly.

All tribes in the sample submitted a Water Quality Assessment Report in the last two (2) years5

that included:

descriptions of their assessment methodologies, including thresholds used for

comparison and statistical analyses conducted;

thresholds that were associated with specific uses and parameters for making

decisions;

discussions on potential sources of water quality impacts.

More than half of the tribes in the sample reported making decisions regarding a water body

meeting its designated use or goals based on their assessments. Several of these tribes, about

one-third of those sampled, used other agencies’ data for their assessment activities. Two-

5 Actual document titles varied, but were submitted to the EPA CWA Program for the reporting component of their CWA §106 grants.

12 of 18

thirds of tribes in the sample discussed making interpretations, analysis, or other assessments

of monitoring data that were specific to a site, including assessing impacts to monitoring sites from nearby sources. Half of the tribes in the sample identified at-risk designated uses,

including one example of a tribe indicating that the harvest of plants for the creation of art,

crafts, and medicines was impacted. Generally, tribes in the sample are monitoring to collect

baseline data; one tribe indicated they have switched to site-specific monitoring based on

assessments of their water quality data. None of the tribes in the sample are listing impaired

waters formally or developing anti-degradation plans for them.

As tribes continue to refine and advance their water quality management programs by using all

available data to make informed decisions, they can the identify areas of concern that would

benefit from more targeted approaches to protecting and managing their precious water

resources for future generations.

Recommendations and Conclusion In general, the tribal water quality assessment reports reviewed contained the necessary and

appropriate information, as recommended by the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance, and tribes are using these assessments to make informed decisions, comparing monitoring results to

thresholds that define their water quality standards. However, while many of the tribes in the

sample indicated they have observed impairments or other declines in water quality, they have

typically not moved beyond baseline monitoring, and none are formally listing impaired waters

or developing anti-degradation plans for them. As tribes continue to develop their capacity for water quality protection activities, they will more effectively address impacts and implement

protection strategies that serve to reinforce tribal sovereignty.

Upon completion of both phases (Phase I and Phase II) of this review of tribal water quality

assessment methodologies, it is clear that tribal programs are conducting water quality

assessments on their waters using various types of information and guidance, and some areas were identified where improved training resources and support can further enhance tribal

assessments and their use as a decision-making tool for tribes and other stakeholders.

To ensure that tribal assessments are comparable to those compiled by other programs across

the nation, there are several recommendations based on the documents reviewed for this study that can inform best practices for tribal assessment reports overall. Water quality assessment

reports are instrumental in informing decision-makers and the public about the quality and

robustness of local waters. Tribes can highlight their values and priorities and strengthen tribal

sovereignty through water quality assessment activities that:

clearly document the full extent of water resources that are under the tribe’s purview;

collect data on all nine core parameters;

use GPS and/or GIS tools and as appropriate, watersheds and/or HUC codes for

standardizing site identification;

articulate the goals and objectives of their program;

include details regarding the specific standards referenced, and how they are used to

inform decision-making;

consider how identifying appropriate methodologies relevant to tribal uses can allow for

an assessment of the impacts to tribal water resources that are applicable to tribes;

explore collaborations and partnerships with outside entities;

work to expand capacity for technical activities related to sampling and analysis;

document data management and interpretation activities, including how data are analyzed for assessment purposes and decision-making;

identify areas of concern that would benefit from more targeted approaches to

protecting and managing their waters.

13 of 18

To further support tribal water quality protection and management activities, the EPA and

other partners can use the findings of this effort to help inform the development and/or refinement of training materials and tools that are relevant and useful for tribes. In order to

help reinforce best management practices for tribes conducting water quality assessments, and

ultimately develop a more complete and comprehensive picture of the quality of the nation’s

waters, the EPA can:

work closely with tribal program staff to identify needed skills or competencies for

enhancing assessment reporting activities, and that are applicable to tribal programs’

unique status with regard to water quality management.

review existing guidance documents and related training resources to identify improvements needed in their clarity, organization, or presentation, as well as updates

or other pertinent revisions needed.

ensure training materials are developed for all skill levels, and provide easy-to-follow,

yet comprehensive, information that can be useful to programs with varying levels of

funding support and internal capacity.

provide on-going support from EPA technical staff or other partners to support tribes

and help ensure their water quality assessment reports contain the recommended

information, particularly the decision-making processes used, and how they are meeting their goals for protecting tribal waters.

prepare a review checklist, rubric, or other process to guide EPA and tribal staff in

identifying the important elements recommended for tribal water quality assessment

reports, as well as identify areas needing further consideration.

In general, the documents reviewed suggest that these tribes are conducting assessments of

their waters, generally according to the information in the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance, and are starting to expand their assessments to include specific information relevant to their programs’

goals and objectives. By updating and enhancing the training, tools, support, and information

that build tribal capacity, the EPA can continue to demonstrate its commitment to protecting

the quality of the nation’s waters. Tribes can continue to enhance and refine their water quality

assessment reporting in order to convey the intrinsic value and significance tribes place on the water resources that are vital to their communities, which also strengthens tribal sovereignty

and affirms a commitment to preserving quality of life for future generations.

R-1

References

Documents used as information sources for the review:

EPA Region

Responding

Name of Tribe Title of document(s) submitted by EPA Regional

Office

Region 1 Houlton Band of Maliseet

Indians

2018 Annual Water Quality Report for the

Meduxnekeag River Watershed

Region 1 Passamaquoddy Tribe Of

Pleasant Point

Water Quality Assessment Report for the

Passamaquoddy Tribe of Pleasant Point

Region 1 Penobscot Indian Nation 2017 Penobscot Nation Water Resources Tribal Assessment Report

Region 1 The Passamaquoddy Tribe at

Indian Township

Water Quality Assessment Report 2018

Region 1 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay

Head Aquinnah

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Section

106: Clean Water Act Program 2018

Region 10 Nez Perce Tribe Lapwai Creek, Idaho Water Quality Monitoring Project,

2016-17

Region 10 Puyallup Tribe 2018 Puyallup Tribe's Annual Water Quality Report

Region 10 Quileute Nation Water Quality Report for the Quileute Tribe

Region 10 Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe Water Quality Program

Technical Assessment Report (TAR) FY18

Region 2 Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Characterization Report for the Surface Waters of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

Region 4 Poarch Band of Creek

Indians

Data Assessment Report FY 2018 Section 106

Program

Region 4 Seminole Tribe of Florida Summary of Accomplishments and Final Performance

Report

Region 5 Ho-Chunk Nation Two Year Water Quality Assessment Report

Region 5 Pokagon Band of Potawatomi

Indians

CWA 106 Water Quality Assessment Report 2018

Region 5 Red Lake Band of Chippewa

Indians

Water Quality Assessment Report 2018 Red Lake

Band of Chippewa Indians

Region 5 Upper Sioux Community Pezihutazizi Oyate

Office of the Environment Water Quality Assessment Report (Physical, Chemical, and Biological) YR 2018

Region 8 Fort Belknap Indian

Community

Fort Belknap Indian Community Section 106 of the

CWA Water Pollution Control Program FY19 Fish

Tissue Data Summary. CWA Section 106 Water

Pollution Control Program Quality Assurance Project

Plan. FBIC Monitoring Strategy

Region 8 Spirit Lake Tribe Spirit Lake Tribal EPA WQ Monitoring Strategy. Spirit Lake Tribe CWA 106 Program Annual Data Analysis

Report (Woodlake E.coli) FY 2015. QAPP for Spirit

Lake CWA 106 Program

Region 9 Yerington Paiute Tribe Yerington Paiute Tribe Annual Summary Report, CWA

106 Program

R-2

Documents used as references to inform methodology to conduct the review:

Linenfelser, B., & Griffith, L. (2007). Evaluating Waterbody Assessment and Listing Processes: Integration of Monitoring and Evaluation Techniques. London: IWA Publishing.

The United States Environmental Agency. (2002). How Water Quality Standards Protect Tribal Waters. Washington DC: U.S. EPA. EPA-823-B-02-002.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of Best Practices (First Edition, July 2002). U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Elements of a State Water

Monitoring and Assessment Program (March 2003). U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans,

and Watersheds. EPA 841-B-03-003

Documents used as guidance for developing a framework for conducting the review ("EPA's Tribal 106 Guidance"):

Note: In this report, the following documents and related appendices are collectively

referred to as "the EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance"

The United States Envionmental Protection Agency. (2007). Final Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act for Fiscal Years 2007 and Beyond. U.S. EPA Office of Water. EPA 832-R-06-003.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Data Assessment and Reporting Supplement to the Clean Water Act Section Tribal 106 Guidance.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Data Management Supplement to the Clean Water Act Section Tribal 106 Guidance.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Developing A Tribal Water Monitoring Strategy Supplement to the Clean Water Act Section Tribal 106 Guidance.

A-1

APPENDIX 1: Memo to EPA Requesting Tribal Water Quality Assessments

MEMO

TO: US EPA Regional CWA Coordinators CC: Tribal CWA-106 Coordinators (to be emailed via EPA regional contact lists)

FROM: Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) DATE: August 29, 2019

RE: Tribal Water Quality Assessment Methodology Review

The Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) will be assisting the US EPA’s Office

of Water (EPA-OW) with an effort aimed at establishing a better understanding how tribes are

currently conducting water quality assessments and making decisions about their waters. This information will benefit both EPA-OW staff and tribal decision-makers by providing a clear

depiction of typical tribal program assessment activities.

We are seeking the assistance of EPA CWA Tribal 106 Coordinators and/or Project Officers in

each region by asking them to coordinate with their tribal grantees to request approval to share

information regarding the current water quality assessment and reporting activities for their programs.

For tribes in your region that have successfully obtained TAS approval for the CWA-106

program, we are requesting a copy of the following:

the most recent tribal water quality assessment report (also known as the TAR or

WQAR), or

any other relevant documentation submitted by the tribe that describes: o monitoring strategies & QA/QC activities (including indicators or parameters

assessed),

o tribal goals/objectives or designated uses,

o assessment methodologies, and

o water quality standards adopted, including thresholds used to compare data.

For this effort, ITEP staff will review the documentation provided to identify the presence or absence of information specified in the Final Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act for Fiscal Years 2007 and Beyond, EPA 832-R-06-003,

Appendix A, (see enclosed outline for information that will be identified for the review).

Only anonymized and summary information will be generated for public distribution using the documents provided to ITEP for this request; identifiable information will not be shared with

any third parties. The information obtained by and prepared for this effort will not be used in

relation to funding eligibility, standards determinations, compliance status, or any other

regulatory activity or action. This study will not require the development of new work products,

or the generation or collection of data by tribes or ITEP; it is a review of existing documentation

maintained by tribes and/or US EPA for tribal CWA-106 programs. A summary of findings will be provided in a narrative report to EPA-OW, all participating tribes, and the National Tribal

Water Council, and will be made available to the general public via ITEP’s website.

We are requesting the information be provided by September 30, 2019. To set up a time to discuss this request in more detail, or if you have additional questions about this project, please contact us at the information below:

Josie Kamkoff, Researcher Lydia Scheer, Project Director

Ph: 928-523-9555 Ph: 928-523-6887

Email: Josephine.Kamkoff@nau.edu Email: Lydia.Scheer@nau.edu

A1-2

The following is an excerpt from EPA’s Final Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act for Fiscal Years 2007 and Beyond – Appendix A, EPA

832-R-06-003.

Tribes receiving CWA Section 106 grants are required to submit an annual Assessment Report

consisting of the following three components:

1. A description of your monitoring strategy:

• Water quality indicators (WQI) and/or other parameters to be monitored

• Monitoring frequency for each WQI and parameter • Monitoring sites

• Monitoring data use and display 2. A water quality assessment report – aka “TAR” or “WQAR” (see below for details) 3. Electronic copies of surface water quality data for nine basic parameters – submitted to

STORET/WQX

ASSESSMENT REPORTS:

EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance states that fundamental tribal program water quality assessments

should include:

1. An atlas table of tribal water resources, including: estimated number of stream miles,

lake acres, wetland acres, or estuarine square miles on your reservation

2. A narrative description of tribal water quality monitoring programs and assessment methods.

• Parameters monitored

• Monitoring frequency

• Discussion of any applicable WQI, tribal goals and objectives, or standards

• Coordination or collaboration with other organizations • Any lab support

• How data are interpreted and managed

3. A narrative description of results of water quality monitoring on the reservation.

4. Brief narrative descriptions of issues of tribal concern [including “designated uses” or

water quality protection goals].

• The purpose of the monitoring program (e.g., to identify problem areas, track changes over time, identify NPS impacts, address public health concerns)

5. Monitoring data, submitted electronically, for each assessed water body.

EPA’s Tribal 106 Guidance states that intermediate (and mature) tribal program Water

Quality Assessments should include: 1. An atlas table of tribal water resources, including: estimated number of stream miles,

lake acres, wetland acres, or estuarine square miles on your reservation.

2. Brief narrative descriptions of monitoring programs and assessment methods.

• Parameters monitored

• Monitoring frequency

• Monitoring network design (e.g., rotating basin, fixed station) • Discussion of any applicable WQI, tribal goals or objectives, or standards

• Coordination or collaboration with other organizations

• Nature of laboratory support

• How data are interpreted and managed

3. Summary tables of the extent to which streams, lakes, and estuaries meet designated uses or tribal goals (including cultural uses of waters).

• Tribes should use WQI or EPA-approved or tribally-adopted WQS to determine

whether streams, lakes, and estuaries meet designated uses or tribal goals.

4. Summary tables of causes and sources of impairment

5. Narrative description of water quality on the reservation and issues of tribal concern.

A1-3

Tribes with intermediate programs should submit a QA/QC Summary within their report. A

QA/ QC Summary further clarifies the narrative description of the monitoring and assessment methods used for analyzing and assessing data. This summary should describe the process

used to review the QA/QC data and answer the following questions:

1. Were field and laboratory data reviewed?

2. Were any QC issues identified? Please explain the problems found.

3. How were these issues resolved?

4. Were the data removed or included in the subsequent analysis? EPA recommends comparing data against threshold values and reporting on specific sites

rather than on the extent of a given resource meeting goals.

It is anticipated that mature tribal programs will have EPA-approved or tribally adopted water

quality standards. For those tribes with tribal or EPA-approved water quality, standards, the water quality assessment should indicate whether waterbodies are attaining the appropriate

water quality standards. <>

A2-1

APPENDIX 2: Guided Review Questions - Phase II of Tribal WQAR Study 1. General Information About Documents Reviewed

Q1.1 Title of document submitted Q1.2 EPA Region Q1.3 Name of Tribe Q1.4 Name of Tribal Program Q1.5 Name of Respondent Q1.6 Email Address Q1.7 Telephone Number

2. Monitoring Descriptions

Q2.1 Is the full extent of waters on tribal lands identified? (e.g. Number of miles of streams, acres of wetlands) Q2.2 How is the full extent of waters identified?

Waterbody GIS Segment/Area Location GPS Latitude/Longitude Watershed HUC Code

Q2.3 Are there maps (monitoring sites) or other graphics (photos, charts, etc.) included? Q2.4 Is there any discussion about the monitoring network design? Q2.5 Has the tribe developed a water quality monitoring strategy? Q2.6 Has the tribe developed an approved QAPP for water quality monitoring? Q2.7 Is the tribe conducting baseline monitoring activities? Q2.8 Are the types of water sampled identified? (river, lake, wetland, groundwater, etc.) Q2.9 How are monitoring sites identified?

Waterbody GIS Segment/Area Location GPS Latitude/Longitude Watershed HUC Code

Q2.10 List all other monitoring site descriptions. Q2.11 Are designated uses identified? Q2.12 Check All Designated Uses Identified

Recreation Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Fishery and Wildlife Propagation Other Uses Agriculture Irrigation Water Supply Fish for Consumption Livestock Watering

Q2.13 Is monitoring schedule/frequency specified for each parameter? Q2.14 Is monitoring season specified for each parameter? Q2.15 Are specific monitoring parameters or water quality indicators identified for each site?

A2-2

Q2.16 Which of the following parameters are being monitored? Dissolved oxygen pH Temperature Turbidity Phosphorus Nitrogen Macroinvertebrates Fecal coliform, including E. coli Basic habitat information

Q2.17 List other parameters if samples have already been taken. Q2.18 Are data management activities discussed? Q2.19 Is there any discussion of general tribal concerns or issues identified as a result of the water monitoring

program (e.g. fish kills, water quantity, etc.)? 3. Analysis and Assessment

Q3.1 Are data interpretation activities discussed? Q3.2 Is the tribe assessing data to determine trends in water quality improvement over time? Q3.3 Is the tribe assessing data to determine trends in water quality impairment status over time? Q3.4 Is the tribe assessing data to compare their sites to other sites during the same timeframe? Q3.5 Has the tribe developed or adopted water quality standards? Q3.6 Are the water quality thresholds used for comparison identified? Q3.7 What authority or standards are used?

State Tribal EPA Research/Literature

Q3.8 Name of Authority Q3.9 Are the thresholds for comparison associated with specific parameters for making decisions? Q3.10 Are the thresholds for comparison associated with specific uses for making decisions? Q3.11 Statistical Summaries of Monitoring Data Included and Specific to a Site/Unit

Mean/median values Range of concentrations found Threshold for comparison Number of sampling locations above/below threshold Percent exceedance None

Q3.12 Do data summaries include number of samples (n) assessed? Q3.13 Are QA/QC activities for reviewing data specified?

4. Decision-Making

Q4.1 Did the tribe submit a water quality assessment report in the past two years? Q4.2 Are decisions being made regarding a water body meeting its designated uses or goals? Q4.3 Are tribal protection goals or management objectives identified? Q4.4 Which are identified?

Protection goals Management objectives

Q4.5 Are goals/objectives identified for all sites/water body? Q4.6 Are goals/objectives identified specific to each site/water body? Q4.7 Does the tribe specifically identify designated uses for a site?

A2-3

Q4.8 Is a methodology for assessing the data described in a way that states how the assessment was made? Q4.9 Are all monitoring sites assessed? Q4.10 Are specific monitoring sites assessed distinct? Q4.11 Was a contractor or other third party (including volunteer groups, labs, etc.) responsible for any data

collection, management, or analysis activities? Q4.12 Is the entity and their activities specified (e.g. Lab ABC provided macroinvertebrate data)? Q4.13 Were the data submitted to EPA for the assessment period? Q4.14 Is there any discussion of the potential causes of impairment? Q4.15 Is there any discussion on which designated uses for the water body meet/do not meet the standards? Q4.16 If not meeting, what is being done to address impairment? If meeting, what is being done to protect clean

waters? Q4.17 Do they have methodologies identified? Methodologies describe how data is compiled and analyzed to

make assessment decisions that are comparable over time. Q4.18 Do they have thresholds to compare their data against? Q4.19 Do they use other agencies data for assessment? Q4.20 Are there other interpretations, analyses, assessments of monitoring data included that are specific to a

site/unit? Q4.21 Comments/notes included for special circumstances

A3-1

APPENDIX 3: A Review of Water Quality Assessment Methodologies of

the “ATTAINS Tribal Pilot Workgroup” – Executive Summary

A review of documentation from 14 tribes in a pilot project focused on identifying methodologies for

water quality assessment activities conducted under the Clean Water Act §106 Program, January-

December 2018. Report date: August 9, 2019.

Executive Summary This report provides a summary of the review of existing water quality assessment

methodologies identified by tribes participating in the EPA’s ATTAINS6 tribal pilot project workgroup. The findings of this report should inform future efforts by the EPA, including the

development of training materials that enhance tribal capacity for conducting water quality

assessments. To effectively demonstrate progress made towards reaching their goals, tribes can

use these assessments to protect crucial resources and further reinforce tribal sovereignty.

Water quality assessments, which specify methodologies used in the decision-making process,

help tribes determine if the water quality supports the designated use of a water body, and

ensure the standards identified are met. Methodologies documented by the pilot participants

were reviewed to identify the presence or absence of specific information recommended for

tribal water quality assessment decisions. The results were synthesized and organized for

analysis, including other relevant observations from the documents reviewed.

The following items were identified as “key elements” recommended for inclusion in tribal

assessment methodologies, in the context of the pilot’s focus on the use of ATTAINS for

reporting decisions; these included:

Assessment units (AUs);

Designated uses (DUs) of waters;

Thresholds or criteria employed by the tribe for assessing a given parameter;

Water quality standards (WQS) employed for assessment criteria and decisions.

The methodologies were reviewed to identify the key elements, which were cataloged systematically and summarized for this report. Where items were noted as missing, incomplete,

or needing further clarification, the tribal pilot members were provided the opportunity to

adjust or otherwise address the item. The information presented in this report reflects any

revised methodologies received from the tribe and approved for use.

In summary, this review found:

The identification of assessment units and their designated uses were typically well-

defined, and some tribes expressed the importance of considering traditional uses and

cultural practices in determining these;

Assessment methodologies were most clearly denoted when designated uses were easily

identifiable; some documents used different terms for seemingly similar uses and further clarification was required;

Generally, the thresholds and/or criteria used for decision-making purposes were able

to be identified for the parameters listed; however several reports had missing or

unclear information, largely due to issues with the structure of the template provided.

6 EPA’s Assessment, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS)

A3-2

Overall, the pilot tribes demonstrated a solid foundation for, and interest in, continuing to

expand their water quality assessment activities. To ensure their use and value to stakeholders, tribal water quality assessment reports should include clear and consistent use

of terminology and abbreviations, with definitions specified as needed; water quality standards

should cite specific, pertinent information only, and quality assurance information included for

others’ reference. Tribal programs should consider the unique impacts of water quality on

cultural practices. As appropriate, tribes should use outside information and stakeholder input

to inform their assessment activities. Additional considerations for enhancing tribal water quality assessments are outlined in the following report.

This effort has demonstrated to pilot project participants how their assessment methodologies

included key elements used to inform decision-making and needed for reporting them through

ATTAINS. As tribes move to standardize their assessments and make them more accessible to decision-makers, they will reduce their reporting burden and more effectively demonstrate

progress made in their water quality protection and restoration efforts.

Through the findings in this report, the EPA can identify ways to enhance templates, guides,

and other training materials that further support tribes in building the capacity to reach their

management and protection goals through robust assessment approaches. <>