EPA910-R-07-004
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Ecological Condition of the
Columbia River Estuary
-------
(blank page)
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
Ecological Condition of the Columbia River Estuary
an Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Report
Authors:
Gretchen Hayslip1, Lorraine Edmond1, Valerie Partridge2, Walt Nelson3, Henry Lee3, Faith Cole3, Janet
Lamberson3, and Larry Caton4
December 2007
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington
2 Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program, Olympia, Washington
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Western Ecology
Division, Newport, Oregon
4 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Publication Number: EPA 910-R-07-004.
Suggested Citation:
Hayslip, G., L. Edmond, V. Partridge, W. Nelson, H. Lee, F. Cole, J. Lamberson, and L. Caton. 2007.
Ecological Condition of the Columbia River Estuary. EPA 910-R-07-004. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Environmental Assessment, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
(blank page)
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
Acknowledgments
Western Coastal EMAP relies on the cooperation of federal, state and local agencies. Special recognition
for their efforts is due the following participants:
Washington Department of Ecology
Dustin Bilhimer Casey Cliche
Christina Ricci Margaret Dutch
Kathy Welch Ken Dzinbal
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Mark Bautista Greg McMurray
Greg Coffeen Greg Pettit
Curtis Cude Chris Redmond
Paula D'Alfonso Crystal Sigmon
RaeAnn Haynes Daniel Sigmon
Dan Hickman Scott Sloane
Bob McCoy
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Bernie Anulacion Leslie Kubin
Jon Buzitis Dan Lomax
Tracy Collier Mark Myers
Alison Geiselbrecht Paul Olson
Andy Hall Sean Sol
Larry Hufnagle
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Dave Terpening Doc Thompson
Office of Research and Development
Tony Olsen Steve Hale
John Macauley Patrick Clinton
in
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
(blank page)
IV
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
Executive Summary
The Columbia River estuary is a unique and important ecological resource. EPA's National Estuary
Program (NEP) was established by Congress in 1987 in Clean Water Act amendments to improve the
quality of estuaries of national significance. The Columbia River estuary is one of 28 estuaries in the
NEP.
The overall quality of the Columbia River estuary, which forms the border between Washington and
Oregon, is described in this report using data collected as part of the Western Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP). EMAP was initiated by EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) to estimate the current status and trends in the condition of nation's ecological resources. EMAP
also examines associations between these indicators and natural and human-caused stressors. The coastal
component of EMAP's monitoring and assessment tools are used to create an integrated and
comprehensive coastal monitoring program of coastal ecosystems. Water column measurements are
combined with information about sediment characteristics and chemistry, benthic organisms, and fish to
describe the current estuarine condition.
Sampling began during the summer of 1999, with small estuaries of the Columbia River. In 2000,
sampling continued with the larger Columbia River estuary. The boundary for the Columbia River estuary
was head of tidal influence, so there were some freshwater components of this sampling effort. The
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) conducted all field sampling for this project in 1999-2000 with assistance from EPA Region 10
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
This project was designed to evaluate the overall condition of the Columbia River estuary. For water
physical/chemical parameters, 7% of the area of the Columbia River estuary was in fair/poor condition,
while nutrient indicators (nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll a) showed a larger percent of the area (31-
46%) in the fair/poor condition category. For sediment indicators, total organic carbon showed none of
the areas was in poor condition, but for sediment contaminants approximately 16% of the Columbia River
estuarine area was in poor condition. As for biological indicators (chemicals in fish tissue and percent
Corbicula), for chemicals in fish tissue, 39% of the area was in fair/poor condition. An even higher
percent of the Columbia River estuary (66%) was in poor condition using percent Corbicula, a non-
indigenous species, as an indictor.
In 2006, we evaluated the ecological condition of the estuaries of Oregon and Washington (Hayslip, et al.,
2006). The percent area in fair/poor condition for every indicator we evaluated was higher in the
Columbia River estuary. The only exception was for chemicals in fish tissue where we found 47% of the
area for estuaries of Oregon and Washington in fair/poor condition and 39% in the Columbia River
estuary in fair/poor condition.
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
(blank page)
VI
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Background 2
B. Objectives 2
II. METHODS 3
A. Design 3
B. Indicators 5
1. Field Methods 7
2. Laboratory Methods 8
3. Data Analysis Methods 9
III. RESULTS 11
A. Water Physical/Chemical Parameters 11
1. Water Clarity 11
2. Dissolved Oxygen 11
3. Nutrients 12
4. TSS 13
B. Sediment Characteristics 15
1. Silt-Clay Content 15
2. Total Organic Carbon 15
3. Metals 16
4. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 17
5. PolychlorinatedBiphenyls(PCBs) 17
6. Pesticides 17
C. Toxicity 18
1. Acute sediment toxicity tests 18
D. Chemicals in Fish Tissue 19
1. Metals 19
2. Pesticides 21
E. Benthic Invertebrates 22
1. Benthic abundance 22
2. Benthic species richness/diversity 22
F. Fish 24
IV. CONCLUSIONS 26
A. Water Physical/Chemical Indicators 26
B. Sediment Characteristics 28
C. Chemicals in Fish Tissue 30
D. Benthic Invertebrates 30
E. Summary 30
V. REFERENCES 32
VII
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
VI. APPENDICES 35
Appendix 1. Site location information 35
Appendix 2. Chemicals measured in sediments and fish tissues 37
Appendix 3. Summary statistics for water chemistry and habitat indicators 38
Appendix 4. Summary statistics for sediment characteristics 39
Appendix 5. Summary statistics for contaminants in fish tissue 42
Appendix 6. Benthic invertebrate species from 1999-2000 44
Appendix 7. Fish species from 1999-2000 47
Vlll
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
List of Figures
Figure 1. Example Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 10
Figure!. CDF of Water Clarity 11
Figure 3. CDF of Secchi Depth 11
Figure 4. CDF of Bottom Dissolved Oxygen 11
Figure 5. CDF of Surface Dissolved Oxygen 12
Figure 6. CDF of Total Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 12
Figure 7. CDF of Soluble Phosphorus 12
Figure 8. CDF of Mean Chlorophyll a 13
Figure 9. CDF of N:P Ratio 13
Figure 10. CDF of Total Suspended Solids 14
Figure 11. CDF of Percent Silt-Clay 15
Figure 12. CDF of Total Organic Carbon 16
Figure 13. CDF of Total PAHs 17
Figure 14. CDF of Total DDT 18
Figure 15. CDF of Inorganic Arsenic in Fish Tissue 19
Figure 16. CDF of Mercury in Fish Tissue 20
Figure 17. CDF of Zinc in Fish Tissue 20
Figure 18. CDF of DDT in Fish Tissue 21
Figure 19. Most Common Benthic Invertebrates 23
Figure 20. Most Commonly Found Fish at Intermediate and Freshwater Sites Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 21. Percent of estuarine area with all 3 nutrient indicators in good or poor or mixed condition. ...28
Figure 22. Summary of Sediment Contamination 28
Figure 23. Summary of Chemicals in Fish Tissue 30
Figure 24. Percent Corbicula 30
Figure 25. Overall Condition of Columbia River Estuarine Area for Selected Indicators 31
List of Tables
Table 1. Selected Coastal EMAP Indicators 6
Table 2. Station Total Depth and CTD Sampling Depths 7
Table 3. Station Depth and Discrete Water Sampling Depths 7
Table 4. Selected Chemicals in Sediments of the Columbia River estuary 16
Table 5. % of Estuarine Area with Pesticides Detected in the Sediments 18
Table 6. Selected Contaminants in Fish Tissue in the Columbia River estuary 19
Table 7. Criteria for Assessing Water Physical/Chemical Indicators 27
List of Maps
Map 1. Columbia River estuary EMAP Sampling Locations, 1999-2000 4
Map 2. Sites with Mercury in Fish Tissue exceeding the
TSC 20
Map 3. Sites with Zinc in Fish Tissue exceeding the TSC 20
Map 4. Sites with DDT in Fish Tissue exceeding the TSC 21
Map 5. Map of sediment contaminant condition summary 29
IX
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
(blank page)
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Photo: Boat used by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality for Columbia River estuary
Sampling.
I. INTRODUCTION
Estuaries are bodies of water that receive
freshwater and sediment from rivers and
saltwater and sediment from the oceans. They
are transition zones between the fresh water of a
river and the salty environment of the sea. This
interaction produces a unique environment that
supports wildlife and fisheries and contributes
substantially to the ecology and economy of
coastal areas.
Recent studies have shown that growth of the
human population is concentrated in the coastal
areas (Culliton, 1990). This population growth in
the coastal areas is a principal driver for many
ecosystem stresses such as habitat loss, pollution,
and nutrient enhancement. These stressors can
affect the sustainability of coastal ecological
resources (Copping and Bryant, 1993). Increased
globalization of the economy is a major
influence in the introduction of exotic species
into port and harbors. Major environmental
policy decisions at local, state and federal levels
will determine the future for estuarine conditions
of the western U.S. Information on the ecological
condition of estuaries is essential to these policy
decisions.
EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP) was
established by Congress in 1987 to improve the
quality of estuaries of national significance. The
Clean Water Act Section 320 directs EPA to
work collaboratively with locals to develop a
plan (called Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans) for attaining or maintaining
water quality in an estuary. The Columbia River
estuary is one of 28 estuaries in the NEP. The
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership's
(LCREP's) Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan, Volume 1 (LCREP, 1999)
identifies actions that can be conducted in the
study area to improve water quality and habitat
in the Columbia River estuary.
The Columbia River estuary extends
downstream from the Bonneville Dam at river
mile 146 to the mouth of the Columbia River.
The overall quality of Columbia River estuary,
which forms the border between Washington and
Oregon, is described in this report using data
collected as part of the Western Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP).
In EPA Region 10, Western EMAP is a
cooperative effort between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and
Development (ORD), EPA Region 10, the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology),
the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
others. Much of this report is based on work by
ODEQ (Sigmon, 2004), Ecology (Wilson and
Partridge, 2007) and EPA ORD (Nelson, 2005
and U.S. EPA, 2004).
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
A. Background
EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program) was initiated by EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD) to
estimate the current status and trends in the
condition of nation's ecological resources.
EMAP also examines associations between these
indicators and natural and human-caused
stressors. This information will assist the EPA
and States/Tribes as the Clean Water Act (CWA)
directs them to develop programs that evaluate,
restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters. The
data collected during this survey can also be used
to examine the relationships between
environmental stressors and the condition of
ecological resources
The coastal component of Western EMAP
applies EMAP's monitoring and assessment
tools to create an integrated and comprehensive
coastal monitoring program along the west coast.
Water column measurements are combined with
information about sediment characteristics and
chemistry, benthic organisms, and fish to
describe the current estuarine condition.
Sampling began during the summer of 1999,
with small estuaries of the Columbia River. In
2000, sampling continued with the larger
Columbia River estuary. The boundary for the
Columbia River estuary was head of tidal
influence, so there were some freshwater
components of this sampling effort. This report
provides a summary of the data from 1999-2000
sampling for the Columbia River estuary.
B. Objectives
to establish a baseline for evaluating how
the conditions of the estuarine resources
change in the future;
to develop and validate improved
methods for use in future coastal
monitoring and assessment efforts in the
western coastal states;
to transfer the technical approaches and
methods for designing, conducting and
analyzing data from statistically based
environmental assessments to the states
and others;
to work with the states and others to build
a strong program of water monitoring
which will lead to better management and
protection of western estuaries.
The overall objectives of this project are:
to describe the current ecological
condition of the Columbia River estuary
based on a range of indicators of
environmental quality using a statistically
based survey design;
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
II. METHODS
The Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology), and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducted all
field sampling for this project in 1999-2000 with
assistance from EPA Region 10 and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The goal of EMAP is to develop ecological
monitoring and assessment methods that advance
the science of measuring environmental
resources to determine if they are in an
acceptable or unacceptable condition. Two major
features of EMAP are:
the probability-based selection of sample
sites and
the use of ecological indicators.
A. Design - How to Select
Estuarine Sites to Sample
Environmental monitoring and assessments are
typically based on subjectively selected sampling
sites. EMAP provides an alternative method of
sample site selection for large-scale monitoring.
Peterson (1999) compared subjectively selected
localized lake data with EMAP probability-based
sample selection and showed the results for the
same area to be substantially different. The
primary reason for these differences was lack of
regional sample representativeness of
subjectively selected sites. Coastal studies have
been plagued by the same problem. A more
objective approach is needed to assess overall
estuarine quality on a regional scale.
In addition, it is generally impossible to
completely census an extensive resource, such as
the set of all estuaries on the west coast. A more
practical approach to evaluating resource
condition is to sample selected portions of the
resource using probability-based sampling.
Designing a probability-based survey begins
with creating a list of all units of the target
population
from which to select the sample and selecting a
random sample of units (places to collect data)
from this list. The list or map that identifies
every unit within the population of interest is
termed the sampling frame.
Studies based on random samples of the resource
rather than on a complete census are termed
sample or probability-based surveys. Probability-
based surveys offer the advantages of being
affordable and of allowing extrapolations to be
made of the overall condition of the resource
based on the random samples collected. These
methods are widely used in national programs
such as forest inventories, consumer price index,
labor surveys, and such activities as voter
opinion surveys.
A probability-based survey design provides an
approach to selecting samples in such a way that
they provide valid estimates for the entire
resource of interest, in this case the Columbia
River estuary. Therefore, the results in this
document will be reported in terms of the percent
of estuarine area of the Columbia River estuary.
The sampling frame for the EMAP Western
Coastal Program was developed from USGS
1:100,000 scale digital line graphs. Additional
details are described in Diaz-Ramos (1996),
Stevens (1997), and Stevens and Olsen (1999).
The assessment of condition of small estuaries
conducted in 1999 was the first phase of a two-
year comprehensive assessment of all estuaries
of the states of Washington and Oregon. The
complete assessment requires the integrated
analysis of data collected from the small
estuarine systems in 1999 and the larger
estuarine systems in 2000 (Map 1). The intent of
the design is to be able to combine data from all
stations for analysis. The West Coast sampling
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
I
Map 1. Columbia River estuary EMAP Sampling Locations, 1999-2000
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
frame was constructed as a GIS coverage that
included the total area of the estuarine resource
of interest. The estuarine area of the Columbia
River represented by this report is 611 square
kilometers (or 236 square miles).
For the state of Washington, the 1999 design
included 12 sites in the tributary estuaries of the
Columbia River located within Washington
State. The Oregon 1999 design included 17 sites
in the tributary estuaries of the Columbia River
located within Oregon. A total of 29 sites were
sampled in tributary estuaries of the Columbia
River in 1999.
In 2000, the design included only the main
channel area of the Columbia River. The
Columbia River system was split into two
subpopulations: the lower, saline portion and
the upper, more freshwater portion, with a total
of 20 and 30 sites, respectively (Appendix 1).
All sites from both states and for both years (79
sites) were combined for analysis in this report to
represent the entire 611 square kilometers of the
Columbia River estuary of Oregon and
Washington.
B. Indicators - What to Assess at
Each Selected Site
The objective of the Clean Water Act is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
Therefore, in order to assess the nation's waters,
it is important to measure chemical (including
sediment chemistry and fish tissue
contaminants), physical (such as water clarity,
and silt-clay content) and biological (fish and
invertebrate communities, and toxicity testing)
conditions. Coastal EMAP uses ecological
indicators to quantify these conditions. Indicators
are measurable characteristics of the
environment, both abiotic and biotic, that can
provide information on ecological resources.
There is a great deal of information collected as
part of Coastal EMAP. Table 1 shows the
selected core EMAP coastal indicators. For a list
of the chemical analytes for sediment and tissue
samples, see Appendix 2. In the following
section, we will give an overview of the methods
for those indicators that we describe in the
results and discussion sections of this report.
Additional detailed information on field data
collection and laboratory analysis methods is
available in the "Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal
Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan
(U.S. EPA, 2001).
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Indicator
Rationale
Water Column Indicators
Water Clarity
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved
nutrients
(Nitrogen and
Phosphorus)
Total Suspended
Solids
Clear waters are valued by society and contribute to the maintenance of healthy and productive
ecosystems. Light penetration into estuarine waters is important for submerged aquatic vegetation
which serves as food and habitat for the resident biota.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column is necessary for all estuarine life. Low levels of oxygen
(hypoxia) or lack of oxygen (anoxia) often accompany the onset of severe bacterial degradation,
sometimes resulting in the presence of algal scums and noxious odors. In severe cases, low DO can
lead to the death of large numbers of organisms.
Dissolved inorganic nitrogen and dissolved inorganic phosphorus are necessary and natural nutrients
required for the growth of phytoplankton. However, excessive dissolved nutrients can result in
large, undesirable phytoplankton blooms.
Total suspended solids (TSS) refers to the matter that is suspended in water. TSS can be a useful
indicator of the effects of runoff from construction, agricultural practices, logging activity,
discharges, and other sources.
Sediment Indicators
Silt-Clay Content
Sediment
contaminants
Sediment toxicity
testing
The percentage of particles present in bottom sediments that are silt and clay is an important factor
determining the composition of the biological community. It is an important factor in the adsorption
of contaminants to sediment particles and therefore for the exposure of organisms to contaminants.
A wide variety of metals and organic substances are discharged into estuaries from urban,
agricultural, and industrial sources in the watershed. The contaminants adsorb onto suspended
particles that settle to the bottom, disrupt the benthic community and can concentrate in the tissue of
fish and other organisms.
A standard direct test of toxicity is to measure the survival of amphipods (commonly found, shrimp-
like benthic crustaceans) exposed to sediments for 10 days under laboratory conditions.
Biological Indicators
Benthic
organisms
Fish-tissue
contaminants
The organisms that inhabit the bottom substrates of estuaries are collectively called benthic
macroinvertebrates or benthos. These organisms are an important food source for bottom-feeding
fish, shrimp, ducks, and marsh birds. Benthic organisms are sensitive indicators of human-caused
disturbance and serve as reliable indicators of estuarine environmental quality. We also examine
which species are Non-Indigenous species (NIS) also called non-native species.
Chemical contaminants may enter an organism in several ways: uptake from water, sediment, or
previously contaminated organisms. Once these contaminants enter an organism, they tend to build
up. When fish consume contaminated organisms, they may "inherit" the levels of contaminants in
the organisms they consume. This same "inheritance" of contaminants occurs when other biota
(such as birds) consume fish with contaminated tissues.
Table 1. Selected Coastal EMAP Indicators
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
1. Field Methods
Detailed descriptions of the field methods are
available in the "Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal
Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan
2001-2004" (U.S. EPA, 2001). The discussion
below is a very brief summary of the methods
used for the indicators that will be evaluated in
this report.
Photo: Example of water sampler
Water Column
Water depth, salinity, conductivity, temperature,
pH and DO data were collected using an
electronic instrument called a Conductivity
Temperature Depth recorder (CTD), which takes
measurements from the surface to the bottom of
the water column. Photosythetically available
radiation (PAR) was measured with LiCorฎ
PAR sensors. The CTD and underwater PAR
sensor were mounted for water column profiling.
Water quality indicators were recorded with the
CTD at discrete depth intervals, depending on
the total station depth (Table 2).
Total Depth (m)
<1.5
< 2
> 2 and < 10
>10
Sample Depth Increment
Mid-depth
Every 0.5m
0.5m,
Every 1m,
0.5 off bottom
0.5m,
Every 1m up to 10m,
Every 5m to 0.5m off bottom
Table 2. Station Total Depth and CTD Sampling Depths.
Near-bottom measurements were taken after a
three minute delay in case the sediment surface
had been disturbed. Data were recorded for
descending and ascending profiles. Secchi depth
was recorded as the water depth at which a
standard 20cm diameter black-and-white Secchi
disc could be seen during ascent.
Discrete water samples were collected with
bottles at one to three depths, which
corresponded with the CTD and PAR
measurement depths (Table 3). Water grab
samples were analyzed for dissolved nutrients
[forms of Nitrogen (Nitrate, Nitrite,
Ammonium), and Phosphorus], Total Suspended
Solids and Chlorophyll a.
Total Depth (m)
<1.5
> 1.5 to < 2
>2
Discrete Sample depth
Mid-depth
0.5m
0.5m off bottom
0.5m
Mid-depth
0.5m off bottom
Table 3. Station Depth and Discrete Water Sampling
Depths.
Sediment
Sediment samples were collected with a 0.1-m2
Van Veen grab sampler. All sediment sampling
gear was decontaminated and rinsed with site
water prior to sample collection. Acceptable
grabs were >_ 7 cm penetration, not canted, not
overflowing, not washed out, and had an
undisturbed sediment surface. Water overlying
the sediment grab, if present, was siphoned off
without disturbing the surface. The top 2-3 cm of
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
sediment were removed with a stainless steel
spoon and transferred to a decontaminated
container. Sediments from a minimum of three
grabs were composited to collect approximately
6 liters of sediment. Most sites required from 6
to 9 grabs. Once adequate sediment was
collected, it was homogenized and transferred to
clean jars, stored on wet ice and later refrigerated
or frozen until analysis.
Benthic Invertebrates
Sediment samples to enumerate the benthic
infauna were collected using a 0.1-m2 Van Veen
grab sampler. After collection, infauna were
sieved through nested 1.0-mm and 0.5-mm mesh
sieves using site water supplied by an adjustable
flow hose. Material caught on the screens was
fixed with 10% phosphate-buffered formalin.
Samples were re-screened and preserved with
70% ethanol within two weeks of field
collection. The 0.5 mm fraction was archived,
and the 1.0 mm fraction was shipped for sorting
and taxonomic identification.
Fish Trawls
Bottom trawls were conducted using a 16-foot
otter trawl with a 1.25-inch mesh net. Trawls
were intended to retrieve demersal fishes (fish
living on or near the bottom) and benthic
invertebrates. Trawling was performed after
water quality and sediment sampling were
completed. Fish were obtained by hook-and-line
techniques at sites where trawling was not
feasible due to safety and/or logistical concerns.
The catch was brought on board, put alive into
wells containing fresh site water and
immediately sorted and identified. Information
was recorded on species, fish length and number
of organisms. All fish not retained for tissue
chemistry or to study their diseased tissue
(histopathology) were returned to the estuary.
Fish Tissue
From the fish caught, several species of flatfish
(demersal soles, flounders, and dabs) were
designated as target species for the analyses of
chemical contaminants in whole-body fish tissue.
These flatfish are common along the entire U.S.
Pacific Coast and are intimately associated with
the sediments. Where the target flatfish species
were not collected in sufficient numbers,
perchiform (see list below) species were
collected. These species live in the water column
but feed primarily or opportunistically on the
benthos. In cases where neither flatfish species
nor perches were collected, other species that
feed primarily or opportunistically on the
benthos were collected for tissue analysis. The
target species analyzed for tissue contaminants
were:
Pleuronectiformes (flatfish)
Citharichthys sordidus - Pacific sanddab
Citharichthys stigmaeus - speckled sanddab
Platichthys stellatus - starry flounder
Pleuronectes isolepis - butter sole
Pleuronectes vetulus - English sole
Psettichthys melanostictus - sand sole
Perciformes (perchiform fish)
Cymatogaster aggregata - shiner perch
Embiotoca lateralis - striped sea perch
Other
Leptocottus armatus - Pacific staghorn sculpin
Target species were used for whole-body tissue
contaminant analyses. Individuals of a single
species (ideally 5-10 fish) were combined for a
single composite sample. Approximately 200-
300 grams of tissue (wet weight) is needed to
complete all analysis, but a minimum of 50
grams of tissue is required for mercury analysis.
2. Laboratory Methods
The detailed quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) program and laboratory methods for
the Western Coastal EMAP program are outlined
in "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP): National Coastal Assessment
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001-2004"
(U.S. EPA, 2001). The methods are described
briefly below.
Water
Discrete water samples were analyzed by the
state environmental labs (Oregon DEQ and
Ecology/University of Washington).
Sediment Chemistry
Sediment samples for chemical analysis were
taken from the same sediment composite used
for the sediment toxicity tests. Approximately
250-300 ml of sediment was collected from each
station for analysis of the organic pollutants and
another 250-300 ml for analysis of the total
organic carbon (TOC) and metals (Appendix 2).
The analytical methods are those used in the
NOAA NS&T Program (Lauenstein, 1993) or
documented in the EMAP-E Laboratory
Methods Manual (U.S. EPA, 1994a).
Fish Tissue
Organic and metal contaminants were measured
in the whole-body tissues of the species offish
listed above (Section II.B.l). Chemical residues
in fish tissue (Appendix 5) were determined for
each of the composited tissue samples. Quality
control procedures for the tissue analysis were
similar to those described above for sediments
and followed the procedures detailed in U.S.
EPA (1994a and 2001), including the use of
certified reference materials, spikes, duplicates,
and blanks.
Sediment Physical Parameters
Sediment silt-clay and TOC were analyzed by
the State labs (Oregon and Washington). Grain
size analysis was by dry- and wet sieving.
Sediment digestion for TOC analysis was by
acidification and combustion.
Amphipod Sediment Toxicity Tests
The 10-day, solid-phase toxicity test with the
marine amphipod Ampelisca abdita was used to
evaluate potential toxicity of sediments from all
sites. Mortality, and emergence from the
sediment during exposure were the exposure
criteria used. All bioassay tests were performed
within 28 days of field collection using the
benthic amphipod Ampelisca abdita. Amphipod
toxicity tests were performed with the species
Hyalella azteca for the freshwater sites in the
Columbia in 2000. Procedures followed the
general guidelines provided in ASTM Protocol
E-1367-92 (ASTM 1993) and the EMAP-E
Laboratory Methods Manual (U.S. EPA, 1994a).
Benthic Invertebrates
Benthic infauna data were processed according
to protocols described in the EMAP lab method
manual (U.S. EPA, 1994a). Both indigenous and
exotic organisms were identified to the lowest
practical taxonomic level (species where
possible).
3. Data Analysis Methods
In this report, the primary method for evaluating
indicators for sites selected using the EMAP
probability design is the cumulative distribution
function (CDF). A CDF is a graph that shows the
distribution of indicator or parameter data
accumulated over the entire "population" of
concern. The "population" in this report is
generally the total area of the Columbia River
estuary.
The EMAP statistical design allows for
extrapolation from data collected at specific sites
to the entire "population," in this case the
Columbia River estuary.
For example, if an indicator value above 3 is
considered "impaired," then Figure 1 (CDF)
shows that approximately 60 percent of the area
of the Columbia River estuary exceed that
threshold (and the other 40% of the estuary area
is below 3).
The EMAP design also allows for the calculation
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
of confidence intervals for CDFs. For example,
we could say that 60% of the area of the
Columbia River estuary exceed some threshold,
plus or minus 8%. However, for ease of reading
the CDFs, we did not include the confidence
intervals for the graphs in this document.
The CDF below is just an introductory example.
The 50% line marked on all of the CDFs in this
report, including the one below, is just a marker
and not an ecologically important criterion.
100
ss
3 50
%
UJ
-*^
0
0
40
10 20 30
Example Indicator
Figure 1. Example Cumulative Distribution Function
(CDF).
10
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
III. RESULTS
In this section of the report we will describe the
results from the data collected using the EMAP
protocols (described in Section II) from nearly
80 randomly selected sites in the Columbia River
estuary (Map 1). We are able to present only a
portion of the indicators that were generated
from the field data due to the large volume of
information that was collected. Additional
indicators are summarized in the Appendices. In
Section IV, we will then compare these results to
established benchmarks (where available) to
make conclusions about whether the Columbia
River estuary is in good, fair or poor condition.
A. Water Physical/Chemical
Parameters
1. Water Clarity
Light Transmissivity
The extent of light transmittance or attenuation at
a given water depth is a function of the amount
of ambient light and water clarity, with the latter
affected by the amount of dissolved and
particulate constituents in the water. Light
transmissivity, the percent of light transmitted at
1m, in the Columbia River estuary ranged from 0
to 87.6 percent (median 16.8 percent) across the
68 stations where light transmissivity was
measured (Figure 2).
100
90
SO
70
3 50
6 40
| 30
ฃ 20
10
r
20 40 60 SO
Light Transmission at 1 m (%)
100
Secchi Depth
Secchi Depth is a measure of cloudiness or
turbidity. It is the greatest depth to which light
can penetrate underwater. Secchi depth in the
Columbia River estuary ranged from 0.1 meters
to 3.5 meters (median 1.5 meters) across the 78
stations where Secchi depth was measured
(Figure 3)
100
90
SO
70
60
40
c
t
& 20
10
0
01234
Secchi Depth (m)
Figure 3. CDF of Secchi Depth.
2. Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is necessary for all estuarine
life. Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in
the bottom water for the Columbia River estuary
ranged from 2.9 mg/L to 11.5 mg/L (median
8.4), across the 79 stations of the total estuarine
where bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations
were measured (Figure 4).
100
90
|
w
4 6 8 10
Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
12
14
Figure 4. CDF of Bottom Dissolved Oxygen.
Figure 2. CDF of Water Clarity.
11
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Surface dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in
the Columbia River estuary ranged from 3.4
mg/L to 11.2 mg/L (median 8.8 mg/1) across the
79 stations where surface dissolved oxygen
concentrations were measured (Figure 5).
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Figure 5. CDF of Surface Dissolved Oxygen.
3. Nutrients
Nutrients are chemical substances used by
organisms for maintenance and growth that are
critical for survival. Plants require a number of
nutrients. Of these, nitrogen and phosphorus are
of particular concern in estuaries for two reasons:
they are two of the most important nutrients
essential for the growth of aquatic plants, and the
amount of these nutrients being delivered to
estuaries is increased by many human activities.
Eutrophication is a condition in which high
nutrient concentrations stimulate excessive algal
blooms, which then deplete oxygen as they
decompose. Estuaries with insufficient mixing
may become hypoxic (low in oxygen) and under
the worst conditions, the bottom waters of an
estuary turn anoxic (without oxygen).
Nutrient concentrations were measured at the
surface, middle and bottom of the water column
at 79 stations. The following graphs represent the
mean of the three depths at each station.
Total Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
Total dissolved inorganic nitrogen
concentrations ranged from 20.6 to 283.7 ug/L
for the sites sampled. The three depths showed a
similar distribution, but bottom and midwater
samples generally had higher total nitrogen
concentrations than did the surface samples.
About half of the estuary area had less than 150
ug/L total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (Figure
6) for the mean of the three depths at each
station.
100
90
SO
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
300
50 100 150 200 250
Mean Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (ug/1)
Figure 6. CDF of Total Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen.
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble phosphorus concentrations ranged from
0 to 34.4 ug/L (Figure 7). About half of the
estuarine area had soluble phosphorus
concentrations less than 16 ug/L for the mean of
the three depths at each station.
100
90
a
ฃ
0 10 20 30
Soluble Phosphorus (ug/1)
Figure 7. CDF of Soluble Phosphorus.
40
12
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Chlorophyll a
Phytoplankton are microscopic plants common
to estuarine waters. Phytoplankton are primary
producers of organic carbon and form the base of
the estuary food chain. One procedure for
determining the abundance of phytoplankton is
to measure the amount of the photosynthetic
pigment chlorophyll a that is present in water
samples. Chlorophyll is a pigment common to all
photosynthetic algae, and its amount in the
water is in relation to the algal concentration.
Chlorophyll a concentrations ranged from 0 to
14.5 ug/L (Figure 8). About one-half of the
estuary area had less than 4 ug/L for the mean of
the three depths at each station.
100
90
SO
70
60
40
c
10
0 -t
0
20
5 10 15
Mean Chlorophyll a (ug/1)
Figure 8. CDF of Mean Chlorophyll a.
Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratio
The relationship between nitrogen and
phosphorus (N:P ratio) can provide insights into
which of these nutrients is limiting. Molar
nitrogen to phosphorus ratios (N:P) ranged from
0 to 179 (Figure 9) for the mean of the three
depths at each station. Thirty-seven percent of
the estuary area had N:P < 16, which may
indicate that production of phytoplankton at
these sites is nitrogen-limited.
100
200
Figure 9. CDF of N:P Ratio.
4. TSS
Suspended materials include soil particles (clay
and silt), algae, plankton, and other substances.
Total suspended solids (TSS) refer to the matter
that is suspended in water. The solids in water
have different attributes and sizes.
Total suspended solids often increase sharply
during and immediately following rainfall,
especially in developed watersheds, which
typically have relatively high proportions of
impervious surfaces such as rooftops, parking
lots, and roads. The flow of stormwater runoff
from impervious surfaces rapidly increases
stream velocity, which increases the erosion rates
of streambanks and channels (U.S. EPA, 1993).
Some of the physical effects of above normal
suspended materials include:
clogged fish gills, inhibiting the exchange
of oxygen and carbon dioxide,
reduced resistance to disease in fish,
reduced growth rates,
altered egg and larval development,
fouled animal filter-feeding systems, and
hindered ability of aquatic predators from
spotting and tracking down their prey.
13
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Higher concentrations of suspended solids can
also serve as carriers of toxins, which readily
cling to suspended particles. Total Suspended
Solids in the Columbia River estuary ranged
from .6 mg/L to 140 mg/L (mean 10.3 mg/L)
across the 79 stations where TSS was measured
(Figure 10)
100
90
SO
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100
Mean Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Figure 10. CDF of Total Suspended Solids.
150
14
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Photo: Sediment sampling by Washington Department of
Ecology.
B. Sediment Characteristics
Sampling of sediment was conducted at 77
stations, representing 98% of the area of the
Columbia River estuary. Silt-clay content and
total organic carbon (TOC) are descriptors of the
characteristics of the sediments. For
contaminants in the sediments, the section below
compares the concentrations of metals and
organic chemicals in those sediment samples to
state sediment standards, where available, and to
sediment quality guidelines. See Appendix 4 for
additional details.
The sediment quality guidelines used here are
concentrations that have shown adverse effects
on organisms in laboratory experiments. They
are divided into ERLs (Effects Range-Low) and
ERMs (Effects Range-Median) and are described
more completely in Long, 1995. ERM guidelines
were calculated as the 50th percentile
concentrations associated with toxicity or other
adverse biological effects in a database compiled
from saltwater studies conducted throughout
North America. The ERL guidelines were
calculated as the 10th percentile of that dataset.
However, since much of the Columbia River
estuary is freshwater (salinity <5 psu), we will
also use the Threshold Effect Concentration
(TEC), the concentration below which adverse
effects are not expected to occur (for more
detailed discussion see MacDonald et al., 2000).
TECs were derived for common chemicals of
concern in freshwater sediments. TECs provide
a reliable basis for classifying freshwater
sediments as toxic.
In this section of the report we will be using the
ERLs, ERMs and TECs as descriptors, since a
single exceedance may or may not indicate poor
estuarine condition. In Section IV, we will
examine sites with multiple exceedances, which
may indicate poor estuarine condition.
1. Silt-Clay Content
The proportion of fine grained materials (silt and
clay) in the estuarine sediments ranged from 0 to
93%, with a mean of 7.9% fines, across the 77
stations where silt-clay content was measured
(Figure 11). If sediment samples with less than
20% fines are considered predominantly sand,
then sandy sediments make up 89% of the
estuarine area. If samples with more than 80%
fines are considered muddy, then muddy
sediments cover 3% of the estuarine area.
20
40 60
Silt-Clay (%)
SO
100
Figure 11. CDF of Percent Silt-Clay.
2. Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is the amount of
15
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
organic matter within the sediment. TOC can be
an important food source for deposit-feeding
benthos. Silty sediments high in TOC are more
likely than sandy sediments, or sediments low in
TOC, to have contaminants adsorbed to them.
TOC concentrations in the Columbia River
estuary ranged from 0% to 2.2% (Figure 12)
across the 77 stations where TOC was measured.
o
0.5
1 1.5
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Figure 12. CDF of Total Organic Caibon.
2.5
3. Metals
Sediment samples were collected from 77 sites,
representing 98% of the estuarine area, and were
analyzed for metals. Table 4 describes the
minimum, maximum and the percent of estuarine
area exceeding the ERMs, ERLs, and TECs.
Chromium, copper and nickel exceedances of the
ERL or TEC will not be included in any
aggregate sediment contaminant indicator. This
is because the ERL and TEC for chromium are
less than the average concentration found in the
Earth's crust and in marine shales (100 and 90
ppm, respectively, Krauskopf and Bird, 1995).
The ERL and TEC for copper are also less than
the average concentration in the Earth's crust and
in shale (55 and 45 ppm, respectively). Also, the
ERL and ERM values for nickel are not based on
a strong correlation between concentration and
effect (Long, 1995). Finally, the ERL, ERM and
TEC concentrations for nickel are within the
range of concentrations found in common rock
types that make up the earth's crust.
Analyte
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
PAH, total
PCB, total
DDT, total
DDE
dieldrin
lindane
units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Hg/kg
Hg/kg
Hg/kg
Hg/kg
Hg/kg
Hg/kg
Min.
detecte
(1
0.69
0.09
15.3
8.3
1.5
0.0049
15.1
0.13
0.13
54
1
0.8
0.27
0.27
1.5
1.3
Max.
20.8
0.9
89.8
59
25.9
0.2
49.2
0.46
0.98
147
59878
13
7.2
3.9
1.8
2.7
% area
analyte
detected
92
80
100
100
100
94
100
10
40
100
39
15
13
11
o
J
6
Fresh-
water
TEC1
9.8
0.99
not used
not used
36
0.18
not used
N/A
N/A
121
1610
60
5.3
3.2
1.9
2.4
% area
exceeds
TEC
4.8
0
N/A
N/A
0
<1
N/A
N/A
N/A
11.1
<1
0
<1
<1
0
4.7
Estuarine
ERL2
8.2
1.2
not used
not used
46.7
0.15
not used
N/A
1
150
4022
22.7
1.58
2.2
N/A
N/A
% area
exceeds
ERL
7.2%
0
N/A
N/A
0
1.4%
N/A
N/A
0
0
<1
0
6
<1
N/A
N/A
Estuarine
ERM2
70
9.6
370
270
218
0.71
not used
N/A
3.7
410
44792
180
46.1
27
N/A
N/A
% area
exceeds
ERM
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
<1
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Table 4. Selected Chemicals in Sediments of the Columbia Paver estuary (N/A = criterion not available for comparison).
1 Macdonald, et al., 2000.
2 Long, et al., 1995.
16
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
4. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are
petroleum or coal combustion by-products often
associated with elevated levels of tumors in fish.
The PAHs of low molecular weight are relatively
easy to degrade, whereas those with higher
molecular weights are resistant to
decomposition. The low molecular weight PAHs
are acutely toxic to aquatic organisms, whereas
the high molecular weight PAHs are not.
However, several high molecular weight PAHs
are known to be carcinogenic.
Total PAH
Total PAHs ranged in concentration from below
detection to 59,878 ppb (ng/g dry weight), and
were detected in 39% of the estuarine area
(Figure 13). The TEC of 1610 ug/kg, the ERL of
4022 ug/kg and the ERM of 44792 ug/kg were
all exceeded at only one site representing less
than 1% of the area.
100
90
so
70
3 50
I 40
| 30
ฃ 20
10
10000 20000 30000 40000
Total PAHs
50000 60000
Figure 13. CDF of Total PAHs.
5. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of
toxic, persistent chemicals formerly used in
electrical transformers and capacitors. They
often accumulate in sediments, fish, and wildlife,
and are detrimental to the health of these
organisms.
The sediment quality guidelines and standards
for PCBs are based on a different analytical
method than that used to analyze the EMAP
sediments* so the "total PCB" concentrations
using the two methods will not yield the same
result. The EMAP totals are of the 21 PCB
congeners measured, so the concentrations are
biased low. The comparison is useful to highlight
areas that are impacted by PCBs, but it is
important to keep in mind that if identical
methodology were used, additional sites might
show exceedances.
*The EMAP PCB analyte list includes the most
common congeners, which are not necessarily
the most toxic. Because the EMAP total PCB
concentration is a sum of only the 21 congeners
that were measured, it is important to
remember that it is biased low. There are
approximately 114 PCB congeners that are
found in commercial mixtures (Frame et al,
1996) although some are found only rarely. In
addition, quality assurance review following
EMAP PCB analysis indicated low precision for
the results at the individual congener level due
to interferences. However, the review also
concluded that it was acceptable to use the
EMAP total PCBs as general indicators of
sediment contamination.
EMAP total* PCB concentrations ranged from
below detection to 13 ug/kg. PCBs were detected
in 15% of the estuarine area (Table 5). The TEC
of 60 ug/kg, the ERL of 22.7 ug/kg and the ERM
of 180 ug/kg were not exceeded.
6. Pesticides
Not all of the pesticides measured in the
sediment have criteria to use for comparison.
DDT and DDE have TECs, ERLs and ERMs.
Only dieldrin and lindane have TECs.
Endosulfan sulfate, hexachlorobenzene, DDT
and DDE were found in more than 10% of the
estuarine area (Table 5). Forty-three percent of
the estuarine area had no pesticides detected in
the sediments.
17
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Pesticide
aldrin
chlordane
dieldrin
endosulfan I
endosulfan II
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane
Mi rex
trans nonachlor
DDT, total
44'-DDE
Min.
detected
0.5
allND
1.5
allND
1.75
1.25
2.7
0.6
1.3
0.65
1.3
allND
1.1
0.27
0.27
Max.
detected
1.4
allND
1.8
allND
1.75
11.8
2.7
3.6
3.3
4.6
2.7
allND
1.1
7.2
3.9
% of area
with
detected
analyte
7
0
3
0
<1
12
<1
17
<1
11
6
0
<1
13
11
Table 5. % of Estuarine Area with Pesticides Detected in
the Sediments.
DDT
Total DDT was detected in 13% of the estuarine
area, with concentrations ranging from below
detection to 7.2 ug/kg (Figure 14). The ERL of
1.58 ug/kg was exceeded in 6% of the area, the
TEC of 5.3 ug/kg was exceeded in less than 1%
of the area, but the ERM was not
exceeded.
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
0246
Total DDT (ppb)
Figure 14. CDF of Total DDT.
In a separate EMAP study of the ecological
condition of the continental shelf, the
Washington State Department of Ecology
(Partridge, 2007) found that DDTs were detected
in the offshore locations near the mouth of the
Columbia. Detectable concentrations of DDTs
occur closer to shore near the Columbia River
and get deeper and farther from shore going
northward, with none in the 30-120 m depth
band in the northern half of the Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary.
The DDT breakdown product 4,4'-DDE was
detected in 11% of the estuarine area with
concentrations ranging from below detection to
3.9 ug/kg. The ERL of 2.2 ug/kg and the TEC of
3.2 ug/kg were exceeded in less than 1% of the
area but the ERM was not exceeded.
C. Toxicity
1. Acute sediment toxicity tests
Toxicity testing uses biological organisms, in
this case either the marine amphipod Ampelisca
abdita or the freshwater amphipod Hyallela
azteca, to determine toxicity. Toxicity is a
measure of the degree to which a chemical or
mixture of chemicals in the sediments will harm
living things. Eighty percent of the estuarine area
had over 90% survival rate of the test organisms
(Ampelisca abdita or Hyallela aztecd) when they
were exposed to sediments in the laboratory (i.e.,
80% of the area had less than 10% mortality of
test organisms in the lab).
18
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
D. Chemicals in Fish Tissue
Chemicals were measured in tissue from whole
fish in the Columbia River estuary. The values in
the TSC column in Table 6 were used to indicate
concentrations that may be harmful to the fish.
The Toxic Tissue Screening Concentration
(TSC) is a product of U.S. EPA's water quality
criterion (WQC) and bioconcentration factor
(BCF) per respective chemical
(TSC=WQC*BCF). The BCFs are from the U.S.
EPA (1986). For chemicals not listed in the EPA
document, BCFs were calculated based on Dyer,
2000, unless otherwise noted.
Arsenic was detected in fish tissue in 72.7% of
the estuarine area, with concentrations detected
in fish tissue ranged from .15 mg/kg to 29.8
mg/kg (Figure 15). The TSC of 1.6 mg/kg was
exceeded in 1.1% of the estuarine area.
1.
Metals
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Inorganic Arsenic
Fish tissue was analyzed for total arsenic
(inorganic and organic). Since an arsenic TSC is
applicable for only inorganic arsenic, an estimate
of the percentage of the total arsenic that is
inorganic arsenic in fish tissue (2%) was made
based on other studies of marine fish species.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Inorganic Arsenic in Fish Tissue (ug/g wet weight)
Figure 15. CDF of Inorganic Arsenic in Fish Tissue.
Tissue
Analyte
Units (wet
weight)
Minimum
Detected
Maximum
% Estuarine Area
with Analyte Detected
TSC1
% of total
estuarine area
exceeding TSC1
METALS
Inorganic
Arsenic
Cadmium2
Lead2
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.15
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.11
0.01
7.84
29.77
0.16
0.97
0.26
0.57
0.28
39.06
72.7
52.3
35.1
96.7
88.0
44.1
100.0
1.6
0.083
0.059
0.06
0.56
0.37
20
1.1
1.1
2.5
31.8
2.1
0.0
49.6
PESTICIDES
DDT, total
ug/kg
15.64
493.64
76.3
54
41.1
Table 6. Selected Contaminants in Fish Tissue in the Columbia River estuary.
1 TSC source except where noted: Dyer, S. D., White-Hull, C.E., and Shephard, B.K., 2000, Assessments of Chemical
Mixtures via Toxicity Reference Values Overpredict Hazard to Ohio Fish Communities, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2518-
2524.
2 Shephard, B., 2007, in prep
19
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Mercury
In most (96.7%) of the estuarine area, mercury
was detected in fish tissue. The concentrations
detected in fish tissue ranged from .01 mg/kg to
.26 mg/kg (Figure 16). The TSC of .06 mg/kg
was exceeded in 31.8% of the area.
Zinc
Zinc was detected in fish tissue in 100% of the
estuarine area. The concentrations ranged from
7.8 mg/kg to 39.0 mg/kg (Figure 17).
100
90
g 80
< 70
Oi
I 60
I 50
| 40
| 30
ฃ 20
10
0
0
40
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Mercury in Fish Tissue (ppb wet wt.)
Figure 16. CDF of Mercury in Fish Tissue.
Map 2 shows the sites in the Columbia River
estuary where mercury in fish tissue exceeds the
TSC.
10 20 30
Zinc in Fish Tissue (ppb wet wt.)
Figure 17. CDF of Zinc in Fish Tissue.
The TSC of 20 mg/kg was exceeded in 49.6% of
the area. Map 3 shows the sites where the TSC
for zinc is exceeded.
Map 3. Sites with Zinc in Fish Tissue exceeding the TSC.
Map 2. Sites with Mercury in Fish Tissue exceeding the
TSC.
20
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
2. Pesticides
DDT
In 76.3% of the estuarine area, DDT was found
in the fish tissue analyzed. The concentrations
detected ranged from 15.64 ug/kg to 494 ug/kg
(Figure 18)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
500
100 200 300 400
Total DDT in Fish Tissue (ppb wet wt.)
Figure 18. CDF of DDT in Fish Tissue.
The TSC of 54 ug/kg was exceeded in 41.1% of
the area. Map 4 shows the sites where the TSC
for DDT is exceeded. These results confirm the
findings of the Bi-State report (Tetra Tech, 1993)
which concluded that DDT was distributed in
fish tissue samples collected throughout the
lower Columbia River.
Map 4. Sites with DDT in Fish Tissue exceeding the TSC.
21
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
E. Benthic Invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates were sampled at 77 sites,
representing 98% of the Columbia River estuary.
Benthic invertebrate abundance and diversity
are good indicators of environmental health. See
Appendix 6 for additional information on the
benthic invertebrate community.
1.
Benthic abundance
Benthic invertebrate abundance is the number of
organisms per unit area. It ranged from 2 to over
8000 organisms per O.lm2, with a mean of 364
organisms per 0.1m2.
2. Benthic species richness/diversity
There were 102 species found overall in 1999-
2000. Of these, 44 were found at only 1 site,
while an additional 16 were found at two sites.
Six species were found at 15 or more sites.
Corbicula fluminea, a non-indigenous species,
was found at the most sites (56) representing
73% of the area of the Columbia River estuary.
Benthic species richness (the number of different
taxa found at each site) ranged from 1 to 30, with
a mean of 6 species.
The salinity of the waters sampled was quite
varied. Since benthic invertebrates have varying
tolerances to salinity, we divided the sites into
two groups using the bottom salinity
measurements:
Freshwater, with < 5psu, and
Intermediate, with > 5 and < 25 psu.
Seventy percent of the area was freshwater, and
30% was of intermediate salinity. The Columbia
River estuary sites were all either freshwater or
intermediate. It should be noted that while some
of the some of species may have been found at
very few sites, they can be extremely abundant
locally.
At the freshwater sites, 78 species were found.
Of these, 40 were found at only 1 site, and an
additional 10 were found at two sites. Seven
species were found at 10 or more sites of the
freshwater sites. Corbicula fluminea was found
in 94% of the freshwater estuarine area.
At the intermediate sites, 48 species were found.
Of these, 20 were found at only 1 site, and an
additional 8 were found at two sites. Only two
species were found at 7 or more sites. Corbicula
fluminea was found in 26% of the intermediate
estuarine area.
Figure 19 shows the most common species for
each of the two salinity categories: freshwater
and intermediate. The most common freshwater
species was Corbicula fluminea, a non-
indigenous species. The most common
intermediate species was Paranemertes
californica, which did not occur at all at
freshwater sites.
22
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Americorophium Americorophium
salmonis sp
Corbicula Neanthes limnicola Oligochaeta Paranemertes
fluminea californica
Species
I Intermediate D Freshwater
Figure 19. Most Common Benthic Invertebrates (for each of the two salinity categories: freshwater and intermediate).
23
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
F. Fish
Fish sampling was conducted at 51 sites,
representing 405 square kilometers (66% of the
estuarine area of the Columbia River estuary).
Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) was the
most commonly occurring species; it was found
in over 60% of the estuarine area sampled for
fish. Of the total 21 fish species found, 10
species were found at only one site. It should be
noted that while some of the species may have
been found at very few sites, they can be
extremely abundant locally.
An additional 5 species were found at 5 or fewer
sites. Only 2 species (Starry flounder and Three-
spine stickleback) were found at 10 or more
sites. Appendix 7 lists all of the fish species
found.
Due to the varying tolerances offish to salinity,
we divided the sites into two groups (the same as
for the benthic invertebrates) using the bottom
salinity measurements:
Freshwater, with < 5psu, and
Intermediate, with > 5 and < 25 psu.
Sixty-six percent of the estuarine area sampled
for fish sites was in the freshwater category, and
34% was intermediate. Of the 21 fish species
found overall in 1999-2000, 8 were found in the
intermediate and 16 in the freshwater sites
(Figure 20). Only 3 species were found in both
freshwater and intermediate sites. See Appendix
7 for additional details.
Freshwater sites had bottom salinities of less
than 5 psu and surface salinities between 0.01
psu and 3.4 psu. Of the 16 species found at
freshwater sites, 13 of these species were found
only at freshwater sites. Unique freshwater
species included American Shad, Crappies,
Northern Pikeminnow, Peamouth, Three-spine
stickleback, and Sand roller.
Intermediate sites had bottom salinities between
5 psu and 25 psu and surface salinities from 2.7
psu to 24.9 psu. Of the 8 species found at
intermediate sites, 5 were found only at the
intermediate sites. Unique intermediate species
included: Californian anchovy, White spotted
greenling, Pacific tomcod, English sole and
Longfin smelt. Figure 21 shows the most
common species for each of the two salinity
categories: freshwater and intermediate.
24
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Starry
flounder
Pacific
staghorn
sculpin
Three-spine Pacific
stickleback tomcod
English sole American prickly Shiner perch
Shad sculpin
Species
I Intermediate D Freshwater
Figure 20. Most Commonly Found Fish at Intermediate and Freshwater Sites.
25
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Photo: English Sole, a target fish species.
Most historic assessments of estuary quality have
focused on describing the chemical quality of
estuaries and, occasionally, impacts to sport
fisheries. However, the goal of the Clean Water
Act is to maintain and restore the physical,
chemical and biological integrity of the nation's
waters. In this assessment we try to address this
issue by incorporating direct measurements of
physical, chemical and biological condition of
estuaries.
To assess whether or not a specific metric
indicates good or poor condition, a benchmark,
standard or target is needed for comparison. Not
all parameters or indicators have benchmarks
developed. Therefore, we will only interpret
those indicators that have benchmarks or targets
developed that are relevant to the Columbia
River estuary. This is sometimes a difficult task,
as the Columbia River estuary is often freshwater
in character, so some estuarine benchmarks or
targets may not be appropriate.
In addition, for some indicators, such as
dissolved oxygen, there is a single benchmark.
Above this benchmark, estuarine conditions are
determined to be good, but below it conditions
may range from fair to poor. However, for other
indicators, such as sediment contaminants, we
have benchmarks that allow us to determine
which sites are in good, fair and poor condition.
The National Estuary Program Coastal Condition
Report (NEPCCR) also assessed the condition of
the Columbia River estuary along with the other
estuaries covered by National Estuary Program
(U.S.EPA, 2006). We will compare our results
with the NEPCCR only for those indicators
where we use different benchmarks. The
NEPCCR uses benchmarks developed for
national scale assessments, which in some cases
are different from the more local benchmarks
that we use in this report.
A. Water Physical/Chemical
Indicators
Dissolved Oxygen
Low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are
stressful to many estuarine organisms. These low
levels most often occur in bottom waters and
affect the organisms that live in the sediments.
Low levels of oxygen (hypoxia) or lack of
oxygen (anoxia) often accompany the onset of
severe bacterial degradation, sometimes resulting
in the presence of algal scums and noxious
odors. However, in some estuaries, low levels of
oxygen occur periodically and may be a part of
the natural ecology. Therefore, although it is
easy to show a snapshot of the conditions of the
nation's estuaries concerning oxygen
concentrations, it is difficult to interpret whether
this snapshot is representative of typical
summertime conditions or the result of natural
physical and chemical processes.
The State of Oregon has a DO criterion (6.5
mg/L) for estuaries, which is a relatively high
value compared to other estuarine criteria such as
those used (5 mg/L) in the National Coastal
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2004). Oregon's DO
26
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
criteria for fresh waters range from 6.5 mg/L to
11.0 mg/1, the later being for salmonid spawning
waters. The State of Washington's DO criteria
for Salmonid rearing and migration is 6.5 mg/L.
Therefore, we rated dissolved oxygen good or
fair/poor using the following criteria (Table 7):
Good: > 6.5 mg/L
Fair/Poor: < 6.5 mg/L
Less than seven percent of estuarine area was in
poor condition, having a bottom DO
concentration below 6.5 mg/L. Approximately
93% of the area of the estuaries was in good to
fair condition, having bottom DO concentrations
above 6.5mg/L (Figure 25).
Dissolved Oxygen
Chlorophyll a
Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen
Soluble Phosphorus
Good
> 6.5 mg/L
<5ug/L
<168 ug/L
<22 ug/L
Fair/Poor
< 6.5 mg/L
> 5 ug/L
>168 ug/L
>22 ng/L
Table 7. Criteria for Assessing Water Physical/Chemical
Indicators.
The NEPCCR (U.S. EPA, 2006) reported 99% of
the area of the Columbia River estuary as being
in good condition for dissolved oxygen. This is a
higher percent than our conclusions (93%)
because we used the State of Oregon's dissolved
oxygen criterion (6.5 mg/L) for estuaries.
Nutrients
Some nutrient inputs (such as nitrogen and
phosphorus) are necessary for healthy,
functioning estuarine ecosystems. When excess
nutrients from various sources, such as sewage
and fertilizers, are introduced into an estuary, the
concentration of nutrients will increase beyond
natural background levels. Elevated nutrients can
lead to excess plant production, and thus, to
increased phytoplankton production, which can
decrease water clarity and lower concentrations
of dissolved oxygen.
To assess whether a site was in good or fair/poor
condition (Table 7), we used the suggested
criteria for nitrogen (dissolved inorganic
nitrogen), phosphorus (soluble phosphorus) and
chlorophyll a that were developed based on a
case study in the Yaquina estuary in Oregon. We
used the 75th percentile value proposed for the
less saline part of the estuary for nitrogen and
phosphorus (Table 7). These values are very
similar to those from the 75th percentile of
reference conditions of larger rivers in the
Western Mountain ecoregion from the Western
EMAP study (Herlihy pers com). For
chlorophyll a, we used the mean value from the
less saline area in Yaquina bay study (Brown et
al, 2007), which is the same as the value used in
the National Coastal Assessment.
For nitrogen, 31% of the estuarine area was
considered in fair/poor condition, and 69% was
in good condition (Figure 25). In contrast, the
NEPCCR reported that the 100% of the
Columbia River estuary was in good condition
for nitrogen. This is because they used the
National Coastal Assessment (NCA) benchmark
for nitrogen, while we used benchmarks based
on work in Yaquina bay and Western EMAP
data, which we believe to be more appropriate
for the Columbia River estuary.
For phosphorus, 32% of the estuarine area was
considered in fair/poor condition, and 68% was
in good condition (Figure 25).The NEPCRR had
a consistent result, concluding that 70% of the
Columbia River estuary was in good condition
for phosphorus. This is because the numbers
developed for Yaquina bay and the NCA
numbers are similar.
For Chlorophyll a, 42% of the area was in
fair/poor condition and 58% was in good
condition (Figure 25).
Figure 21 shows the percent of the Columbia
River estuary where all three nutrient indicators
(nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll a) are all
rated as good, or all 3 are rated poor or some mix
of good and poor condition.
27
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Figure 21. Percent of estuarine area with all 3 nutrient
indicators in good or poor or mixed condition.
B. Sediment Characteristics
In this section, we assess sediment characteristics
with two indictors: total organic carbon (TOC)
and sediment contamination.
The 3.5% level was found by Hyland, 2005, to
be associated with decreased benthic abundance
and biomass. None of the estuarine area has total
organic carbon content greater than 3.5%. The
National Coastal Assessment Program (U.S.
EPA, 2004) uses concentrations above 2% and
above 5% TOC to indicate fair and poor habitat,
respectively. Using these values, 1.4% of the
area is in fair condition (above 2%) and none is
in poor condition (above 5%).
To assess the degree of sediment contamination,
the sediment concentrations of contaminants
were compared with the Effects Range-Median
(ERM) and Effects Range-Low (ERL), (Long,
1995) and the Threshold Effect Concentration
(TEC), (MacDonald et al., 2000). A station with
a concentration exceeding an ERM is classified
as being in poor condition. Stations with three or
more concentrations exceeding either the ERL or
TEC were classified as being in fair condition.
For this comparison, nickel, copper, and
chromium exceedances that were within
background ranges were excluded. Less than 1%
of the estuarine area exceeded an ERM
indicating a poor sediment condition (Figure
22). In 5% of the area, no ERMs were exceeded,
but more than 3 ERLs or TECs were exceeded,
indicating a fair rating for sediment
contamination (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Summary of Sediment Contamination.
Map 5 shows the locations where sediment
condition is good (green dots), fair (yellow dots)
and poor (red dot).
28
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Map 5. Map of sediment contaminant condition summary.
29
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
C. Chemicals in Fish Tissue
The Toxic Tissue Screening Criteria (TSC) are
tissue residue levels that, when exceeded, may be
harmful to fish. We evaluated the TSC for
arsenic, cadmium, DDT, lead, mercury, selenium
and zinc. In the Columbia River estuary, 4.6% of
the estuarine area had 4 of these chemicals
exceeding the TSC (at the same site, which
indicates a likely poor condition), 13.7% had 3
chemicals above the TSC, 20.6% had 2 and 61.0
% have one or zero above the TSC, indicating
good conditions (Figure 23).
4 chemicals above TSC
3 above TSC
D 2 above TSC
1 or zero above TSC
Figure 23. Summary of Chemicals in Fish Tissue.
It is difficult to compare our results to the
NEPCCR fish tissue contaminants results. The
benchmark that the NEPCCR uses is the EPA
Advisory Guidance values for fish consumption
by humans using whole-fish contaminant
concentrations. They found that 46 percent of all
stations sampled where fish were rated poor.
However, since the fish collected in this study
were not targeted to fish that people actually eat,
we believe that using a more ecological based
benchmark is more appropriate.
D. Benthic Invertebrates
Benthic indices combine data about the benthic
invertebrate community to assess the condition
of the waterbody. However, there is no benthic
index that has been developed for the Columbia
River estuary. Many of the indices that have
been developed are either for completely
freshwater systems or for much more saline
estuarine systems and neither would be
appropriate to use for the Columbia River
estuary.
Invasive species represent a threat to the
fundamental ecological integrity of aquatic
ecosystems throughout the U.S. (Lee and
Thompson, 2003). Corbicula fluminea is a non-
indigenous clam species that occurs in both fresh
and marine waters. Metrics using Corbicula have
been proposed for rivers (Kerans and Karr,
1994). Therefore, we will use a single metric, the
percent of the total number of taxa that are
Corbicula fluminea (% corbicula) as a very
rough assessment of the condition of the benthic
invertebrate community in the Columbia River
estuary. By definition, zero percent is what the
historic level of any non-indigenous species
(such as corbicula) would have been (27 of the
estuarine area had zero Corbicula); however, we
used a cut-point of 10% as a background level
for % corbicula. Figure 24 shows more than in
66% of the estuarine area, 10% of the total taxa
are Corbicula indicating poor conditions.
% Corbicula
Figure 24. Percent Corbicula
E. Summary
This project was designed to evaluate the overall
condition of the Columbia River estuary. For
30
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
dissolved oxygen, 7% of the area of the
Columbia River estuary was in fair/poor
condition, while nutrient indicators (nitrogen,
phosphorus and chlorophyll a) showed a larger
percent of the area (31-46%) in the fair/poor
condition category (Figure 25). For sediment
indicators, total organic carbon showed none of
the areas was in poor condition, but for sediment
contaminants approximately 16% of the
Columbia River estuarine area was in poor
condition (Figure 25). As for biological
indicators (chemicals in fish tissue and %
corbicula), for chemicals in fish tissue, 39% of
the area was in fair/poor condition (Figure 25).
An even higher percent of the Columbia River
estuary (66%) was in poor condition using
percent Corbicula as an indictor (Figure 25).
In 2006, we evaluated the ecological condition of
the estuaries of Oregon and Washington
(Hayslip, et al., 2006). The percent area in
fair/poor condition for every indicator we
evaluated was higher in the Columbia River
estuary. The only exception was for chemicals in
fish tissue where we found 47% of the area for
estuaries of Oregon and Washington in fair/poor
condition and 39% in the Columbia River
estuary in fair/poor condition.
% Corbicula
Chlorophyll a
Phosphorus
Chemicals in Fish Tissue
Nitrogen
Sediment Contamination
Dissolved Oxygen
.
Good
Fair/Poor
j
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% Estuarine Area
Figure 25. Overall Condition of Columbia River Estuarine Area for Selected Indicators.
31
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
V. REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993. Guide for conducting 10-day
static sediment toxicity tests with marine and estuarine amphipods. ASTM Standard Methods Volume
11.04, Method Number E-1367-92. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
Brown, C.A., W.G. Nelson, B.L. Boese, T.H. DeWitt, P.M. Eldridge, I.E. Kaldy, H. Lee II, J.H. Power,
and D.R. Young. 2007. An Approach to Developing Nutrient Criteria for Pacific Northwest Estuaries: A
Case Study of Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. USEPA Office of Research and Development, National Health
and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. EPA/600/R-07/046.
Copping, A. and B.C. Bryant. 1993. Pacific Northwest Regional Marine Research Program, Vol. 1.
Research Plan, 1992-1996. Office of Marine Environmental and Resource Programs, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Culliton, T.J., M.A. Warren, T.R. Goodspeed, D.G. Remeer, C.M. Blackwell, and J.J. McDonough, III.
1990. 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts, 1960-2010. NOAA, Office of
Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National Ocean Service, Coastal Trends Series, Rockville, MD.
41pp.
Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics Methods Manual. EPA/620/R-
96/002. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.
Dyer, S.C., C.E. White-Hull, and B.K. Shephard. 2000. Assessments of Chemical Mixtures via Toxicity
Reference Values Overpredict Hazard to Ohio Fish Communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000(34):251-
2524.
Hayslip, G., L. Edmond, V. Partridge, W. Nelson, H. Lee, F. Cole, J. Lamberson, and L. Caton. 2006.
Ecological Condition of the Estuaries of Oregon and Washington. EPA 910-R-06-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Assessment, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
Herlihy, A. 2008. Personal communication.
Hyland, J.L., L. Balthis, I. Karakassis, P. Magni, A.N. Petrov, J.P. Shine, O. Vestergaard, and R.M.
Warwick. 2005. Organic carbon content of sediments as an indicator of stress in the marine benthos.
Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 295:91-103.
Kerans, B.L. and J.R. Karr. 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee
Valley. Ecological Applications: 4:768-785.
LCREP (Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership). 1999. Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan, Volume 1. Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR.
32
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
Long, E.R., D. MacDonald, S. Smith, and F. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects
Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. Environmental
Management 19(1): 81-97.
Lee II, H. and B. Thompson, 2003. How Invaded Is Invaded? U.S. EPA. Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, La Jolla, California, March 16-19, 2003, p. 80.
Macdonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G., and Berger, T. A., 2000, Development and Evaluation of Consesus-
Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems, Arhives of Environmental Contamination
Toxicology, 39,20-31.
Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, J.O. Lamberson, V. Engle, L. Harwell, and L.M. Smith. 2005. Condition of
estuaries of western United States for 1999: A statistical summary. Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. EPA/620/R-04/200.
Peterson, S.A., N.S. Urquhart, and E.B. Welch. 1999. Sample representativeness: a must for reliable
regional lake condition estimates. Environmental Science and Technology 33:1559-1565.
Partridge, V.. 2007. Condition of Coastal Waters of Washington State, 2000-2003: A Statistical
Summary. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication 07-03-051.
www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703051 .html.
Sigmon, C.L.T., L. Caton, G. Coffeen, and S. Miller. 2004. Draft- Coastal Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program. The Condition of Oregon Estuaries in 1999, A Statistical Summary. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Laboratory. Portland, Oregon. DEQ04-LAB-0046-TR.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. 1997. Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations.
Environmetrics 8:167-195.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys overtime for aquatic resources. J. of
Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 4:415-428.
Tetra Tech. 1993. Reconnaissance survey of the lower Columbia River. Task 7 conclusions and
recommendations. Prepared for Lower Columbia River Bi-State Committee. Tetra Tech, Inc., Redmond,
WA. 270 pp. + appendix (TC 8526-07).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Volunteer estuary monitoring: A methods manual. US Environmental Protection Agency
Report EPA 842-B-93-004. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water. 176 pp.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): Laboratory method
manual - estuaries, Volume 1: Biological and physical analysis. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development. Environmental Monitoring and System Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-91/024.
33
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2007
U.S. EPA. 2001. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): National
Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001-2004. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health
and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.
EPA/620/R-01/002.
U.S. EPA. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. Washington D.C. EPA620-R-03-002.
U.S. EPA. 2006. National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. Washington D.C.
EPA-842/B-06/001.
Wilson, S., and V. Partridge. 2007. Condition of Outer Coastal Estuaries of Washington State, 1999: A
Statistical Summary. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication 07-03-012.
www.ecv.wa.gov/biblio/0703012.html
34
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
VI. APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Site location information.
STATE
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
YEAR
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
ESTUARY NAME
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 51.4
COLUMBIA RIVERRIVER MILE 49.2
COLUMBIA RIVERRIVER MILE 53.2
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 45.9
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 59.2
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 61.5
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 62.9
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 66.2
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 69
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 72.5
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 80.2
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 82.8
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 83.6
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 85.1
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 99
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 99.7
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 109.4
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 1 12.6
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 119.9
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 119.9
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 138.8
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 136.6
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE130.8
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 123.1
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 125.3
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 13 1.6
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 3.8
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
EMAP
Station ID
OROO-0001
OROO-0002
OROO-0003
OROO-0004
OROO-0005
OROO-0006
OROO-0007
OROO-0008
OROO-0009
OROO-0010
OROO-0011
OROO-0012
OROO-0013
OROO-0014
OROO-0015
OROO-0016
OROO-0017
OROO-0018
OROO-0019
OROO-0020
OROO-0021
OROO-0022
OROO-0023
OROO-0024
OROO-0025
OROO-0026
OROO-0027
OROO-0028
OROO-0029
OROO-0030
OROO-0031
OROO-0032
OROO-0033
OROO-0034
OROO-0035
OROO-0036
OROO-0037
OROO-0038
OROO-0039
LATITUDE
46.18642
46.16893
46.18787
46.14234
46.14628
46.12905
46.1142
46.10204
46.0889
46.05742
46.01564
45.91205
45.87721
45.86531
45.84555
45.6517
45.64532
45.60626
45.59698
45.59403
45.5839
45.56827
45.56863
45.62269
45.605
45.55558
45.5745
45.54575
45.55037
45.58123
46.27134
46.2592
46.22675
46.24636
46.28297
46.23201
46.242
46.23394
46.23854
LONGITUDE
-123.181
-123.216
-123.141
-123.275
-123.036
-122.999
-122.978
-122.915
-122.923
-122.887
-122.858
-122.81
-122.793
-122.788
-122.786
-122.763
-122.751
-122.675
-122.569
-122.582
-122.502
-122.366
-122.363
-122.018
-122.053
-122.3
-122.165
-122.315
-122.271
-122.149
-124.045
-124.021
-123.978
-123.865
-123.793
-123.939
-123.859
-123.88
-123.79
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
STATE
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
YEAR
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
ESTUARY NAME
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 21.4
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 25.7
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 14.5
COLUMBIA RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 28.8
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 32.5
COLUMBIA RIVER, RIVER MILE 33.5
YOUNGS BAY, RIVER MILE 8.3
CATHLAMET BAY
YOUNGS BAY
CATHLAMET BAY
YOUNGS BAY
CATHLAMET BAY
YOUNGS BAY
MARSH ISLAND CREEK
CATHLAMET BAY
CATHLAMET BAY
CATHLAMET BAY
YOUNGS RIVER
KNAPPA SLOUGH
BRADBURY SLOUGH
WALLACE SLOUGH
CLATSKANIE RIVER
RINEARSON SLOUGH
BAKER BAY
BAKER BAY
BAKER BAY
GRAYS RIVER
BAKER BAY
GRAYS BAY
GRAYS BAY
GRAYS BAY
GRAYS BAY
GRAYS BAY
COWLITZ RIVER
CARROLLS CHANNEL
MARTIN SLOUGH
EMAP
Station ID
OROO-0040
OROO-0041
OROO-0042
OROO-0043
OROO-0044
OROO-0045
OROO-0046
OROO-0047
OROO-0048
OROO-0049
OROO-0050
OR99-0001
OR99-0002
OR99-0003
OR99-0004
OR99-0005
OR99-0006
OR99-0007
OR99-0008
OR99-0009
OR99-0010
OR99-0011
OR99-0012
OR99-0013
OR99-0014
OR99-0015
OR99-0016
OR99-0017
WA99-0038
WA99-0039
WA99-0040
WA99-0041
WA99-0042
WA99-0043
WA99-0044
WA99-0045
WA99-0046
WA99-0047
WA99-0048
WA99-0049
WA99-0050
LATITUDE
46.26919
46.20529
46.22234
46.24003
46.26385
46.25365
46.21268
46.22227
46.2683
46.24906
46.23561
46.113
46.12633
46.10801
46.13026
46.10038
46.12473
46.1014
46.13569
46.11381
46.11322
46.11171
46.08924
46.11229
46.10196
46.0805
46.07717
46.07408
46.18577
46.18082
46.16402
-99.99
46.15784
46.181
46.17998
46.17716
46.17232
46.16495
46.05688
46.05073
45.56797
LONGITUDE
-123.713
-123.882
-123.797
-123.732
-123.658
-123.562
-123.781
-123.665
-123.502
-123.44
-123.427
-123.547
-123.434
-123.519
-123.403
-123.536
-123.413
-123.523
-123.353
-123.447
-123.448
-123.409
-123.49
-123.355
-123.086
-123.163
-123.136
-123.021
-124.006
-124.016
-123.584
99.99
-123.599
-123.426
-123.419
-123.422
-123.436
-123.43
-122.553
-122.528
-122.472
36
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Appendix 2. Chemicals measured in sediments and fish tissues.
CHEMICAL CATEGORY
CHEMICALS
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
Chtysene(Cl-C4)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzothiophene
Dibenzothiophene(C 1 -C3 )
2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluorene(Cl-C3)
2-methylnaphthalene
1 -methy Inaphthalene
1 -methy Iphenanthrene
2,6-dimethylnaphtalene
Naphthalene
Naphtalene(Cl-C4)
Phenanthene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Ideno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
2,3,5 -trimethy Inaphthalene
PCB Congeners
PCB No. Compound Name
8 2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
18 2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl
28 2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
44 2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
52 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
66 2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
101 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
1052,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
1 10/77 2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
118 2,3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB No. Compound Name
126 3,3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
1282,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl
138 2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
153 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
1702,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobiphenyl
1 80 2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
1 87 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
1952,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl
2062,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-nonachlorobiphenyl
2092,2'3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6'-decachlorobiphenyl
DDT and its metabolites
2,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
Chlorinated pesticides other than DDT
Aldrin
Alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
Mirex
Toxaphene
Trans-Nonachlor
Trace Elements
Aluminum
Antimony (sediment only)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (sediment only)
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Other Measurements
Total organic carbon (sediments)
37
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Appendix 3. Summary statistics for water chemistry and habitat indicators. Total estuarine area is 611 square kilometers.
Indicator
Water Clarity - Light
Transmissivity at 1m
Secchi Depth
Dissolved Oxygen - Bottom
Dissolved Oxygen -
Surface
Chlorophyll a
Mean Orthophosphate
Phosphorus
Mean Total Dissolved
Nitrogen
Mean Nitrogen to
Phosphorus Ratio
Total Suspended Solids
Units
%
m
mg/1
mg/1
MS/1
Mgfl
Mgfl
ratio
mg/1
N
68
79
79
79
79
79
79
75
79
Mean
21.163
1.563
8.333
8.655
4.885
17.703
141.827
19.950
10.373
95%
Confidence
18.221
0.678
1.221
0.903
2.966
8.089
58.416
20.883
21.937
Median
16.824
1.500
8.439
8.750
3.967
19.500
148.500
16.647
6.000
Minimum
0.073
0.100
2.900
3.350
ND*
ND*
20.600
5.986
0.667
Range of
Detected Values
0.0732 -
87.590
0.1000-
3.5000
2.900 -
11.474
3.350-
11.200
1.230-
14.500
0.530-
34.429
20.600 -
283.729
5.986 -
178.619
0.667
140.00
Variance
293.152
0.410
1.327
0.726
7.834
58.258
3038.336
386.987
428.482
Standard
Deviation
17.122
0.640
1.152
0.852
2.799
7.633
55.121
19.672
20.700
Standard
Error
0.744
0.026
0.047
0.035
0.114
0.310
2.241
0.823
0.842
*ND = not detected
Summary statistics were calculated with non-detects set to zero.
38
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Appendix 4. Summary statistics for sediment characteristics. Total estuarine area is 611 square kilometers.
Indicator
Aldrin
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsen
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DDE
DDT -Total
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan
II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Units
ng/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
Hg/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
Hg/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
N
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
Mean
0.075
62970.320
0.057
3.686
0.177
0.000
33.622
19.469
0.093
0.225
0.054
0.000
0.018
0.631
0.027
95%
Confidence
0.096
64166.728
0.070
3.993
0.192
ND*
34.813
20.254
0.123
0.290
0.077
0.032
0.787
0.049
Median
0.000
67600.000
0.000
2.700
0.122
ND*
29.800
16.600
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Detection
Frequency(%)
**
6.490
100.000
15.580
94.810
84.410
ND*
100.000
100.000
14.280
15.580
2.600
ND*
1.300
14.280
1.300
Range of
Detected
Results
0.5-
1.400
13000 -
78800.000
0.14-
0.980
0.69-
20.800
0.09-
0.854
ND*
15.3-
89.800
8.35-
59.000
0.27-
3.900
0.27-
7.200
1.5-
1.800
ND*
1.75-
1.750
1.25-
11.800
2.7-
2.700
Variance
0.069
220058940.269
0.027
14.449
0.033
0.000
218.022
94.724
0.143
0.638
0.083
0.000
0.031
3.767
0.073
Standard
Deviation
0.263
14834.384
0.165
3.801
0.182
0.000
14.766
9.733
0.378
0.799
0.288
0.000
0.175
1.941
0.270
Standard
Error
0.011
609.175
0.007
0.156
0.007
0.000
0.606
0.400
0.016
0.033
0.012
0.000
0.007
0.080
0.011
39
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Indicator
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epox
Hexachloro-
benzene
Iron
Lead
Lindane
Manganese
Mercury
Mirex
Nickel
PAH -High
Molecular
Weight
PAH -Low
Molecular
Weight
PAH -Total
PCB-
EMAP Total
Selenium
Silt and Clay
- Percent
Units
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
Hg/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
%
N
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
Mean
0.467
0.019
0.410
37501.853
9.422
0.136
658.128
0.028
0.000
27.546
47.975
16.356
155.445
0.428
0.034
7.850
95%
Confidence
0.540
0.034
0.497
38189.131
9.758
0.181
669.755
0.030
ND*
28.077
62.070
28.518
353.906
0.545
0.043
19.183
Median
0.000
0.000
0.000
35266.667
8.720
0.000
626.000
0.014
0.000
26.650
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.030
Detection
Frequency(%)
**
22.080
2.600
10.390
100.000
100.000
3.900
100.000
98.700
ND*
100.000
0.760
0.760
1.000
0.800
10.390
89.600
Range of
Detected
Results
0.6-
3.600
1.3-
3.300
0.65-
4.600
27700 -
75200.000
1.47-
25.900
1.3-
2.700
437-
1390.000
0.0049 -
0.239
ND*
15.1-
49.200
35.060-
3293.475
20.780 -
3574.433
36.360
59878.200
12.990
13.000
0.13-
0.460
.05-
92.66
Variance
0.816
0.035
1.184
72618329.658
17.399
0.319
20785.404
0.001
0.000
43.380
30544.351
22739.918
6055243.337
2.106
0.012
327.241
Standard
Deviation
0.903
0.188
1.088
8521.639
4.171
0.565
144.171
0.030
0.000
6.586
174.769
150.798
2460.740
1.451
0.110
18.090
Standard
Error
0.037
0.008
0.045
349.942
0.171
0.023
5.920
0.001
0.000
0.270
7.177
6.193
101.050
0.060
0.005
0.743
40
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Indicator
Silver
Tin
Total
Organic
Carbon
Toxaphene
Trans
Nonachlor
Zinc
Units
ug/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ng/g
dry wt
ug/g
dry wt
N
76
77
77
77
77
77
Mean
0.102
1.315
0.227
0.000
0.026
86.134
95%
Confidence
0.119
1.360
0.261
ND*
0.039
87.819
Median
0.000
1.355
0.031
0.000
0.000
79.200
Detection
Frequency(%)
**
61.840
85.710
0.014
ND*
1.100
100.000
Range of
Detected
Results
0.013-
0.980
0.455 -
2.500
97.400
2.167
ND*
1.300
1.100
54.8-
147.000
Variance
0.046
0.310
0.183
0.000
0.028
436.523
Standard
Deviation
0.214
0.557
0.427
0.000
0.167
20.893
Standard
Error
0.009
0.023
0.018
0.000
0.007
0.858
*ND = not detected
**Detection frequency refers to the percent of individual samples analyzed, not to the percentage of the area.
Summary statistics were calculated with non-detects set to zero.
41
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Appendix 5. Summary statistics for contaminants in fish tissue. Total estuarine area is 611 square kilometers.
Aldrin
Alumuminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DDE
DDT -Total
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan 2
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Units
ng/g wet
wt.
Hg/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
Hg/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
N
69
70
70
70
69
70
70
69
70
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Mean
ND*
29.472
0.536
0.015
0.236
0.259
0.913
66.104
76.988
0.420
0.224
1.317
ND*
1.408
ND*
0.085
0.171
95%
Confidence
ND*
32.156
0.790
0.017
0.300
0.277
0.959
72.818
84.872
0.579
0.283
1.622
ND*
1.790
ND*
0.127
0.219
Median
ND*
14.118
0.238
0.009
0.000
0.169
0.878
29.000
29.771
0.000
0.000
0.000
ND*
0.000
ND*
0.000
0.000
Detection
Frequency**
ND*
100.000
65.700
51.400
13.000
100.000
90.000
88.400
85.700
15.900
11.600
30.000
ND*
30.000
ND*
5.800
8.700
Range of
Detected Values
ND*
0.531-
182.834
0.153 -
29.767
0.010 -
0.156
2.023 -
4.855
0.067 -
1.200
0.214 -
3.730
12.000 -
405.444
15.640 -
493.644
0.940 -
29.574
2.890 -
4.896
2.090 -
54.126
ND*
0.788 -
75.702
ND*
1.044 -
8.928
1.445 -
4.095
Variance
0.000
1043.694
9.314
0.000
0.589
0.048
0.304
6520.557
9004.572
3.690
0.508
13.396
0.000
21.071
0.000
0.258
0.327
Standard
Deviation
0.000
32.306
3.052
0.021
0.767
0.218
0.551
80.750
94.892
1.921
0.713
3.660
0.000
4.590
0.000
0.508
0.572
Standard
Error
0.000
1.366
0.129
0.001
0.032
0.009
0.023
3.418
4.014
0.081
0.030
0.155
0.000
0.194
0.000
0.021
0.024
42
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Iron
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Mirex
Nickel
PCB - EMAP total
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Toxaphene
Trans Nonachlor
Zinc
Units
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
Hg/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
jig/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
ng/g wet
wt.
N
70
70
69
70
69
70
70
70
70
41
69
69
70
Mean
50.318
0.055
ND*
0.046
ND*
0.187
52.399
0.251
0.021
0.020
ND*
2.015
17.942
95%
Confidence
54.871
0.063
ND*
0.049
ND*
0.308
58.678
0.260
0.025
0.024
ND*
2.441
18.512
Median
27.251
0.000
ND*
0.033
ND*
0.000
16.821
0.268
0.000
0.000
ND*
0.000
17.316
Detection
Frequency**
100.000
37.100
ND*
97.100
ND*
12.900
91.400
87.100
35.700
14.600
ND*
58.600
100.000
Range of
Detected Values
5.207 -
395.500
0.054 -
0.968
ND*
0.011 -
0.257
ND*
0.085 -
13.169
2.050 -
691.176
0.105 -
0.572
0.008 -
0.280
0.072 -
0.295
ND*
0.440 -
46.066
7.838-
39.060
Variance
3003.012
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.000
2.146
5711.810
0.012
0.003
0.002
0.000
26.314
47.081
Standard
Deviation
54.800
0.102
0.000
0.039
0.000
1.465
75.577
0.112
0.054
0.046
0.000
5.130
6.862
Standard
Error
2.318
0.004
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.062
3.197
0.005
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.217
0.290
* ND = Not Detected
**Detection frequency refers to the percent of individual samples analyzed,
Summary statistics were calculated with non-detects set to zero.
not to the percentage of the area. This is different from Table 6.
43
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Appendix 6. Benthic invertebrate species from 1999-2000. Species are identified as Native (N) or Non-
Indigenous (NTS) species, or blank where it unknown. Freshwater sites have <5 psu bottom salinity and
Intermediate sites have >5 psu and < 25 psu bottom salinity.
Species
Acarina
Actiniidae
Agraylea sp
Americorophium salmonis
Americorophium sp
Americorophium spinicorne
Archaeomysis grebnitzkii
Barantolla nr americana
Bivalvia sp 1
Caecidotea racovitzai
Ceratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Chironomus sp
Cladopelma sp
Clavidae
Coenagrionidae
Coleoptera
Corbicula fluminea
Corixidae
Corophiidae
Crangon franciscorum
Crangon sp
Crangonyx floridanus
subgroup
Cricotopus sp
Cryptochironomus sp
Cryptomya californica
Cyclopidae
Cytherideidae
Demicryptochironomus sp
Dicrotendipes sp
Diptera
Dubiraphia sp
Eogammarus confervicolus
CMPLX
Eogammarus sp
Eohaustorius estuarius
Eohaustorius washingtonianus
Native(N)/Non-
Indigenous (NIS)
N
N
N
N
NIS
NIS
N
N
N
N
# of Total
sites
2
1
2
54
18
11
6
1
3
o
J
2
24
2
1
1
1
1
59
1
13
5
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
o
5
i
9
1
Found at
intermediate sites
1
9
1
3
5
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
2
4
1
Found at freshwater
sites
1
1
2
45
17
8
1
3
3
2
23
2
1
1
1
1
56
1
13
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
5
44
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Species
Ephydridae
Epoicocladius sp
Eteone columbiensis
Fluminicola virens
Gastropoda
Gastropoda sp 3
Gastropoda sp 4
Gomphidae
Grandidierellajaponica
Grandifoxus grandis
Helisoma sp
Heteromastus sp
Hexagenia sp
Himdinea
Hobsonia florida
Hyalella azteca
Hydrobiidae
Juga plicifera
Lampetra ayresi
Macoma balthica
Magelona pitelkai
Manayunkia speciosa
Mediomastus sp
Monoporeia affmis
Mya arenaria
Mytilidae
Narpus sp
Neanthes limnicola
Neanthes sp
Nemertea
Neomysis mercedis
Neotrypaea sp
Nephtys caecoides
Nephtys californiensis
Nephtys cornuta
Nippoleucon hinumensis
Oligochaeta
Paralauterborniella sp
Paranemertes californica
Paraonella platybranchia
Pectinatella magnifica
Phaenopsectra sp
Physella sp
Native(N)/Non-
Indigenous (NIS)
N
N
NIS
NIS
N
N
N
NIS
N
NIS
N
N
N
N
N
NIS
N
N
# of Total
sites
1
1
5
4
1
1
3
5
o
J
1
1
1
4
6
6
1
9
1
1
7
1
5
2
5
o
J
1
1
18
6
2
3
1
1
4
1
2
31
1
7
1
1
1
4
Found at
intermediate sites
5
3
1
1
2
5
1
1
2
1
5
3
1
1
4
1
4
7
1
Found at freshwater
sites
1
1
4
1
1
3
5
1
4
6
4
1
9
1
1
2
5
1
5
1
1
13
3
2
3
2
27
1
1
1
4
45
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Species
Polydora cornuta
Polypedilum sp
Potamopyrgus antipodamm
Procladius sp
Pseudochironomus sp
Pseudodiaptomus forbesi
Pseudopolydora kempi
Pseudopolydora sp
Pygospio elegans
Ramellogammarus
oregonensis
Rhepoxynius stenodes
Saduria entomon
Scolelepis sp
Sialis sp
Siliqua sp
Sphaeriidae
Spio butleri
Streblospio benedicti
Tanytarsus sp
Tetrastemma candidum
Trichoptera
Typhloplanoidea
Uniramia
Native(N)/Non-
Indigenous (NIS)
NIS
NIS
NIS
NIS
N
N
NIS
# of Total
sites
2
1
10
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
5
5
1
5
4
1
5
1
2
4
2
1
2
Found at
intermediate sites
2
1
2
2
4
5
o
J
1
o
J
5
1
3
1
Found at freshwater
sites
1
9
1
1
2
1
2
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
46
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
Appendix 7. Fish species from 1999-2000.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
# of SITES
% ESTUARINE
AREA
SALINTY
FOUND
Class Actinopterygii
Order Clupeiformes
Family Clupeidae
Clupeidae sp
Alosa sapidissima
Clupea pallasii
Herrings, shads, sardines,
sardinellas, sprats, etc.
American Shad
Pacific herring
1
6
1
1.5
8.8
.2
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Family Engraulidae
Engraulis mordax
Californian anchovy
1
3.5
Intermediate
Order Cypriniformes
Family Cyprinidae
Mylocheilus caurinus
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
Peamouth
Northern pikeminnow
2
2
2.9
3.3
Freshwater
Freshwater
Order Gadiformes
Family Gadidae
Microgadus proximus
Pacific tomcod
5
15.0
Intermediate
Order Gasterosteiformes
Family Gasterosteidae
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Three-spine stickleback
13
22.7
Freshwater
Order Osmeriformes
Family Osmeridae
Spirinchus thaleichthys Longfin smelt 1 3.5 Intermediate
Order Perciformes
Family Centrarchidae
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis sp
White Crappie
Crappie
1
1
1.5
.2
Freshwater
Freshwater
Family Pholidae
Pholis ornate
Saddleback gunnel
1
1.1
Intermediate
Family Embiotocidae
Cymatogaster aggregata
Shiner perch
6
14.4
Freshwater,
Intermediate
Order Percopsiformes
Family Percopsidae
Percopsis transmontana
Sand roller
1
1.5
Freshwater
Order Pleuronectiformes
Family Pleuronectidae
Platichthys stellatus
Pleuronectes vetulus
Starry flounder
English sole
34
6
61.3
13.5
Freshwater,
Intermediate
Intermediate
Order Salmoniformes
Family Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus tshcnvytscha
Chinook salmon
1
1.9
Freshwater
47
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2007
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
# of SITES
% ESTUARINE
AREA
SALINTY
FOUND
Order Scorpaeniformes
Family Cottidae
Artedius fenestralis
Cottus asper
Leptocottus armatus
Padded sculpin
Prickly sculpin
Pacific staghorn sculpin
2
3
8
2.0
6.4
16.8
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater,
Intermediate
Family Hexagrammidae
Hexagrammos stelleri
Whitespotted greenling
1
1.8
Intermediate
48
------- |