EPA910-R-08-004 | January 2009
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
Columbia River Basin:
State of the River Report for Toxics
January 2009
-------
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary 1
2.0 Introduction 3
A National Priority
The Story of Contamination in the Columbia River Basin
The Origin and Purpose of the Columbia River Toxics Reduction
Working Group
3.0 Toxic Contaminants 6
What are Toxic Contaminants?
Why are Persistent Toxics a Concern?
What are the Contaminants of Concern in the Columbia River
Basin?
Which Contaminants are Found in People?
What are Emerging Contaminants of Concern?
Fish Consumption Advisories for Toxics are Widespread across
the Basin
4.0 Indicators 11
What are Indicators?
Which Indicator Species are Used in this Report?
Why were These Species Selected as Indicators for the
Columbia River Basin?
Juvenile salmon
Resident fish
Sturgeon
Predatory birds—osprey and bald eagle in the Lower
Columbia River
Aquatic mammals—mink and river otter
Sediment-dwelling shellfish—Asian clam
5.0 Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs 15
Mercury: Most Fish Consumption Advisories in the Basin are due
to High Concentrations of Mercury
Several pathways introduce mercury into the Columbia River
Basin
Regional trends and spatial patterns of mercury levels in the
Basin can be difficult to evaluate
DDT: Banned in 1972, This Pesticide Still Poses a Threat to the
Environment
Soil erosion from agricultural runoff is the main source of DDT
into the Basin
DDT levels are declining with better soil conservation
practices, but DDT still exceeds human health levels of
concern
PCBs: Stable PCB Compounds Continue to Persist in the
Environment
PCBs enter the ecosystem from multiple sources and through
multiple pathways
PCBs in fish are declining but still exceed EPA human and
ecological health concern levels in some areas
PBDEs: Concern over Flame Retardants is Growing
PBDEs are in many everyday products
Information on how PBDEs enter the environment is limited
Levels of PBDEs in the Columbia River are increasing
Summary of Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and
PBDEs
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Table of Contents (contd)
Acronyms
6.0 Toxics Reduction Efforts—Current and Planned 30
States are Improving Water Quality and Reducing Toxics
State agencies are developing water quality improvement
plans
Oregon is using human health criteria to limit toxics
EPA and States are Using Permits to Control Toxics
Federal Government and States are Working to Clean up
Hazardous Waste in the Basin
State and Local Partnerships are Working to Improve Farming
Practices
Partnerships and volunteer efforts are reducing runoff from
farms
Washington is working to control soil erosion and reduce
pesticide runoff in the Yakima River Basin
Oregon is working with farmers to reduce pesticide runoff
State and Local Governments are Removing Toxics from
Communities
Oregon and Nevada are Reducing Industrial Mercury Emissions
Idaho Agencies and Kootenai Tribe are Monitoring Toxics in Fish,
Water, and Air
PCBs and Hydroelectric Facilities
7.0 Conclusions 39
8.0 Toxics Reduction Initiatives 40
9.0 A Path Forward 42
10.0 References 43
BMP
BPA
CRITFC
ODD
DDE
DDT
DOE
EPA
IDEQ
LCREP
NOAA
NPCC
NPDES
ODEQ
OSU
PAH
PBDEs
PBT
PCBs
PNNL
ppb
ppm
ppt
PSP
TMDL
TRI
UC
U.S.
USAGE
USDOE
USEPA
USFWS
USGS
WADOE
WADOH
WDFW
best management practice
Bonneville Power Administration
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
dichlorophenyldichloroethane
dichlorophenyldichloroethylene
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
Northwest Power and Conservation Council
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon State University
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
polybrominated diphenyl ethers
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic contaminant
polychlorinated biphenyls
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
parts per billion
parts per million
parts per trillion
Pesticide Stewardship Partnership
total maximum daily load
Toxics Release Inventory
University of California
United States
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
see DOE
see EPA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Health
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Acknowledgments
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is indebted to many people
for their help in developing this Columbia River Basin: State of the River
Report for Toxics. This has been a team effort from the beginning.
Steering Committee: Mike Cox (EPA), Lead; Jay Davis (USFWS), Bruce
Duncan (EPA), Don Essig (IDEQ), Greg Fuhrer (USGS), Lyndal Johnson
(NOAA), Krista Jones (LCREP), Andrew Kolosseus (WADOE), Jill Leary
(formerly with LCREP), Agnes Lut (ODEQ), Dave McBride (WADOH), Jim
Ruff (NPCC), Mary Lou Soscia (EPA), and James Thomas (The Confederated
Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation)
Contaminant Subgroup: Jill Leary (formerly with LCREP) and Lorraine
Edmond (EPA), Leads; Greg Fuhrer (USGS), Larry Gadbois (EPA), Lyndal
Johnson (NOAA), Andrew Kolosseus (WADOE), Agnes Lut (ODEQ),
Jennifer Morace (USGS), Elena Nilsen (USGS), Rachael Pecore (Columbia
Riverkeeper), and Helen Rueda (EPA)
Sources Subgroup: Lorraine Edmond (EPA), Lead; Linda Bingler (PNNL),
Brent Foster (Columbia Riverkeeper), Nancy Kohn (PNNL), Andrew
Kolosseus (WADOE), Joanne LaBaw (EPA), Kevin Masterson (ODEQ),
Sondra Miller (Boise State), Jennifer Morace (USGS), Elena Nilsen (USGS),
and Helen Rueda (EPA)
Effects Subgroup: Tracie Nadeau (EPA), Lead; Liz Carr (WADOH), Jay Davis
(USFWS), Lyndal Johnson (NOAA), Dave McBride (WADOH), and Rachael
Pecore (Columbia Riverkeeper)
Participants in September 2007 "Indicators Workshop" not listed under
other groups: Tracie Nadeau (EPA), Lead; Claudio Bravo (NOAA), Mark
Curran (Battelle), Patti Howard (formerly with CRITFC), Sandie O'Neil
(WDFW), and Jim West (WDFW)
Data Subgroup: Helen Rueda (EPA), Lead; Chad Brown (WADOE), Curtis
Cude (formerly with ODEQ), Bruce Duncan (EPA), Lorraine Edmond (EPA),
Jay Field (NOAA), Matt Gubitosa (EPA), Jill Leary (formerly with LCREP),
Agnes Lut (ODEQ), Jennifer Morace (USGS), Chris Neumiller (WADOE),
John Piccininni (BPA), John Sands (DOE), and James Thomas (The
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation)
Additional Contributors: Jeremy Buck (USFWS), Brad Carter (EPA),
Tracy Collier (NOAA), Don Essig (IDEQ), Marty Fitzpatrick (USGS), Gene
Foster (ODEQ), Robert Grove (USGS), Chuck Henny (USGS), Art Johnson
(WADOE), Kim Johnson (EPA), Jim Kaiser (USGS), Gretchen Kruse (Free
Run Aquatic Research), Lynn McLeod, Gar Dingess (Battelle), Dale Norton
(WADOE), Desiree Padgett (Battelle), Mark Siipola (USAGE), Suzanne
Skadowski (EPA), Ann Williamson (EPA), and Jennifer Wu (EPA)
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
1
Co&ar ^
D'Alene
Columbia River Basin
ALBERTA
Legend
n •—
fndian
Reservation
The Lower Columbia River
is Ihe reach from BonneviBe
Dam downstream to the Ocean.
The Middle Columbia River is the
reach from Grand Coulee Dam to
Bonne vi He Dam.
The Upper Columbia River is the
reach upstream of Grand Coulee
Dam.
OREGON Burns
WYOMING
r~
i
Paiute '•'-
DvcK
vaitey
NEVADA
! UTAH
-i
75 150
300
The Columbia River Basin
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
1.0
Executive Summary
The Columbia River Basin, one of the world's great river basins, is
contaminated with many toxic contaminants, some of which are moving
through the food web. These toxics in the air, water, and soil threaten the health
of people, fish, and wildlife inhabiting the Basin.
In this report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10,
summarizes what we currently know about four main contaminants in the
Basin and the risks they pose to people, fish, and wildlife. We also identify
major gaps in current information that we must fill to understand and reduce
these contaminants. Current information in the Basin indicates that toxics are a
health concern for people, fish, and wildlife, but this information is sparse. In
many locations, toxics have not been monitored at all. We do not have enough
information in the majority of the Basin to know whether contaminant levels
are increasing or decreasing over time. We need to fill these information gaps
to understand the impacts on the ecosystem and to plan and prioritize toxics
reduction actions.
This report focuses primarily on the following four contaminants: mercury,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its breakdown products,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE)
flame retardants. We focus on these contaminants because they are found
throughout the Basin at levels that could adversely impact people, fish, and
wildlife. Many other contaminants are found in the Basin, including arsenic,
dioxins, radionuclides, lead, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and "emerging
contaminants" such as pharmaceuticals found in wastewater. This report does
not focus on those contaminants, in part because there is a lack of widespread
information on their presence in the Basin.
Mercury contaminates the Basin from industrial and energy-related activities
occurring within and outside of the Basin. Mercury poses a special challenge
because much of the Basin's mercury pollution comes from sources outside
of the Basin via atmospheric deposition. At a watershed scale, however, local
and regional sources can be significant contributors of mercury to the Basin.
Fish consumption advisories for mercury continue to be issued in every state
throughout the Basin.
The pesticide DDT and industrial chemicals known as PCBs have been
banned since the 1970s, and reduction efforts have lowered their levels in the
environment. Unfortunately, these chemicals persist in the environment and
continue to pollute the Basin's waterbodies from various sources, including
stormwater and agricultural land runoff and hazardous waste releases. In many
areas, DDT and PCB concentrations still exceed levels of concern, and fish
consumption advisories for these contaminants continue to be issued in every
state throughout the Basin.
PBDE flame retardants and other emerging contaminants of concern—such as
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products—are a growing concern because
their levels are increasing in fish and wildlife throughout the Basin. We are just
beginning to conduct the research needed to better understand the impacts to
the ecosystem from emerging contaminants.
This report provides preliminary information on the presence of mercury,
DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs in the following species: juvenile salmon: resident
fish (sucker, bass, and mountain whitefish); sturgeon; predatory birds (osprey
and bald eagles); aquatic mammals (mink and otter); and sediment-dwelling
shellfish (Asian clams). These species can help us understand trends in the
levels of toxics in the Basin and judge the effectiveness of toxics reduction
efforts.
Some initial steps to address the problem of toxics have already been taken.
In 2005, EPA joined other federal, state, tribal, local, and nonprofit partners to
form the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group to better coordinate
toxics reduction work and share information. The goal of the Working
Group is to reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin and prevent further
contamination. This State of the River Report for Toxics was identified as a
priority by this multi-stakeholder group and was prepared under the leadership
of EPA Region 10 with the support and guidance of the Working Group.
Meanwhile, there are many ongoing efforts to reduce toxics in the Basin.
Some examples include erosion control efforts in the Yakima Basin: Pesticide
Stewardship Partnerships in the Hood River and Walla Walla Basins: PCB
cleanup at Bonneville Dam: legacy pesticide collection throughout the Basin:
O
m
X
m
O
c
m
w
c
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS JANUARY 2009
b
m
X
m
O
c
and investigation and cleanup of the Portland Harbor, Hanford, and Upper
Columbia/Lake Roosevelt contamination sites. These and other combined
Q efforts have reduced toxics over the years, but we still need to further reduce
g toxics to make the Basin a healthier place for people, fish, and wildlife.
^ To ensure a more coordinated strategy, EPA and our Working Group partners
3D developed a set of six broad Toxics Reduction Initiatives needed to reduce
toxics in the Basin. Over the next year, the Working Group will develop a
detailed work plan to provide a roadmap for future reduction efforts with input
from Basin citizens; local watershed councils; Basin communities and other
entities; and tribal, federal, and state governments.
Reducing toxics in the Basin will require a comprehensive, coordinated effort
by all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the public.
The problems are too large, widespread, and complex to be solved by only one
organization. Our hope is that this report and the subsequent toxics reduction
work plan will help us make this ecosystem healthier for all who live, work,
and play in the Basin.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
2.0
Introduction
The Columbia River Basin is one of the world's great river basins in terms
of its land area and river volume, as well as its environmental and cultural
significance. However, public and scientific concern about the health of the
Basin ecosystem is increasing, especially with regard to adverse impacts on the
Basin associated with the presence of toxic contaminants. A full understanding
of the toxics problem is essential because the health of the Basin's ecosystem is
critical to the approximately 8 million people who inhabit the Basin and depend
on its resources for their health and livelihood. [1] The health of the ecosystem
is also critical to the survival of the hundreds offish and wildlife species that
inhabit the Basin. In this State of the River Report for Toxics, we make our first
attempt to describe the risks to the Basin's human and animal communities
from toxics and to set forth current and future efforts needed to reduce toxics.
The Basin drains about 259,000 square miles across seven U.S. states and
British Columbia, Canada. Of that total, about 219,400 square miles, or
85 percent of the Pacific Northwest region, are in the United States; the
remaining 39,500 square miles are in Canada. [2] The Basin's rivers and
streams carry the fourth largest volume of runoff in North America. The
Columbia River begins at Columbia Lake in the Canadian Rockies and
travels 1,243 miles over 14 dams to reach the Pacific Ocean a hundred miles
downstream from Portland, Oregon. The River's final 300 miles, including
the dramatic Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area, form the border between
Washington and Oregon. In this report, the Lower Columbia River is
considered to be the reach from Bonneville Dam downstream to the Pacific
Ocean, the Middle Columbia River is considered to be the reach from
Bonneville Dam upstream to Grand Coulee Dam, and the Upper Columbia
River is considered to be the reach above Grand Coulee Dam.
Major tributaries to the Columbia River include the Snake, Willamette,
Spokane, Deschutes, Yakima, Wenatchee, John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla,
Fend Oreille/Clark Fork, Okanogan, Kettle, Methow, Kootenai, Flathead,
Grande Ronde, Lewis, Cowlitz, Salmon, Clearwater, Owyhee, and Klickitat
Rivers. The Snake River is the largest tributary to the Columbia River, with
a drainage area of 108,500 square miles, or 49 percent of the U.S. portion of
the watershed. Another major tributary is the Willamette River, which drains
11,200 square miles and is located entirely within the State of Oregon. [2]
The Basin's salmon and steelhead runs were once the largest runs in the world,
with an estimated peak of between 10 million and 16 million fish returning to
the Basin annually to about 1 million upriver adult salmon passing Bonneville
Dam in recent years. [3] For thousands of years, the tribal people of the Basin
have depended on these salmon runs and other native fish for physical,
spiritual, and cultural sustenance. Bald eagles, osprey, bears, and many other
animals also rely on fish from the Columbia River and its tributaries to survive
and feed their young. Historically, the large annual returns of adult salmon and
steelhead have contributed important marine nutrients to the ecosystems of the
interior Columbia River Basin. The Basin is also economically vital to many
Pacific Northwest industries such as sport and commercial fishing, agriculture,
transportation, recreation, and tourism. Throughout history, and up to the
present day, the Basin has supported settlement and development, agriculture,
transportation, and recreation.
There are more than 370 major dams on tributaries of the Columbia River
Basin. [4] With its many major federal and nonfederal hydropower dams,
the River is one of the most intensive hydroelectric developments in the
world. About 65 percent (approximately 33,000 megawatts) of the Pacific
Northwest's generating capacity comes from hydroelectric dams. Under
normal precipitation, the dams produce about three-quarters (16,200 average
megawatts) of the region's electricity. Some of the other major uses of the
multi-purpose dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers include flood control,
commercial navigation, irrigation, and recreation. [3]
A National Priority
In 2006, EPA designated the Columbia River Basin as a Critical Large Aquatic
Ecosystem in our 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. [5] The Plan's Goal 4, Healthy
Communities and Ecosystems, is "to protect, sustain, or restore the health of
people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive
approaches and partnerships."
!°
b
30
O
D
c
O
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
30
O
O
c
O
The Columbia River Basin goal states:
"By 2011, prevent water pollution and improve and protect water
quality and ecosystems in the Columbia River Basin to reduce risks to
human health and the environment."
The focus of the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan was achieving more measurable
environmental results. Working with state, tribal, and local partners, we
selected the following strategic targets for the Columbia River Basin:
• By 2011, protect, enhance, or restore 13,000 acres of wetland habitat and
3,000 acres of upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed.
• By 2011, clean up 150 acres of known highly contaminated sediments in the
Lower Columbia River Basin, including Portland Harbor.
• By 2011, demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of
contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue. Contaminants of
concern include chlorpyrifos and azinphos methyl in the Little Walla Walla
River, DDT in the Walla Walla and Yakima Rivers, and DDT and PCBs in
the mainstem.
We selected these targets because historical data were available and each
represented measurable outcomes for reduction of toxics in the Basin. Meeting
these targets and the overarching goal depends on the states, tribes, local
governments, federal government, and nongovernmental agencies working
together to improve the health of the Columbia River Basin.
The Story of Contamination in the Columbia River Basin
Fish, wildlife, and people are exposed to many contaminants polluting the
water and sediment of the Columbia River Basin. These contaminants come
from current and past industrial discharges (point sources) to the air, land,
and water and from more widespread sources such as runoff from farms and
roads (nonpoint sources) and atmospheric deposition. Some contaminants,
such as mercury, also come from natural sources. Even when released in small
amounts, some of these contaminants can build up over time to toxic levels in
plants and animals.
In 1992, an EPA national survey of contaminants in fish in the United
States alerted EPA and others to a potential health threat to tribal and other
people who eat fish from the Columbia River Basin. [6] The Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) and its four member tribes—the
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes
of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Nez Perce Tribe—were concerned for
their tribal members who consume fish.
To evaluate the likelihood that tribal people may be exposed to high levels of
contaminants in fish, EPA funded the CRITFC tribes to conduct a Columbia
River Basin tribal fish consumption survey, which was then followed by an
EPA and tribal study of contaminant levels in fish caught at traditional tribal
fishing sites. [7-81 The consumption survey showed that the tribal members were
Human activities have contributed many toxic contaminants to the
Columbia River Basin over the last 150 years:
• Dioxins, PCBs, metals, and other toxic chemicals were spilled and
dumped in Portland Harbor. The sources: boat-building, steel-milling,
and sewer discharges.
• "Legacy pollutants"—chemicals banned in the 1970s such as PCBs
and chlorinated pesticides such as DDT—still contaminate the river.
The sources: farmland, roads, construction sites, and stormwater
runoff.
• Newer chemicals, including modern pesticides, flame retardants such
as PBDEs, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, contaminate
the river. The sources: runoff and sewers.
• Metals wash into Lake Roosevelt. The sources: metal smelters in
Washington and British Columbia.
• Metals wash into the Spokane River. The source: mines in northern
Idaho.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
VISIT THE WEB
In addition to this report, EPA's Columbia River Basin website (http://www.epa.gov/region10/columbia) will
provide more detailed and up-to-date information on the health of the Columbia River Basin as work continues.
!°
b
eating six to eleven times more fish than EPA's estimated national average at
that time of 6.5 grams per day. The fish contaminant study showed the presence
of 92 contaminants in fish consumed by CRITFC tribal members and other
people in the Columbia River Basin. Some of these contaminant levels were
above the levels of concerns for aquatic life or human health. [sl Contaminants
measured in Columbia River fish included PCBs, dioxins, furans, arsenic,
mercury, and DDE, a toxic breakdown product of the pesticide DDT.
The Origin and Purpose of the Columbia River Toxics
Reduction Working Group
Over the past two decades, much information was collected on the levels of
contaminants in water, sediment, and fish in the Columbia River Basin. The
result was an accumulation of scattered data that needed to be compiled into a
Basin-wide report of the potential impacts from contaminants to people, fish,
and wildlife. In 2005, EPA joined other federal, state, tribal, local, and non-
profit partners to form the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group to
better coordinate this work and share information. Our goal is to reduce toxics
in the Basin and prevent further contamination. This goal includes reducing
toxics in the plants and animals that people eat and ensuring the survival,
reproduction, and growth offish and wildlife in the Basin.
One of the first actions this multi-stakeholder group identified was the
development of a report for the Columbia River Basin describing the state of
the River. The Working Group recognized toxics as one of several important
factors affecting the health of the Basin's people, plants, and animals. We also
recognized that toxics had received less attention than other factors and that
a report on the influence of toxics was a good first step in understanding the
health of the Basin's ecosystem.
This State of the River Report for Toxics was prepared under the leadership
of EPA Region 10 with the support and guidance of the Working Group. This
report sets in motion the process by which we will address the following
questions:
• Which toxics are we most concerned about in the Columbia River Basin,
and why? Which toxics are the highest priority for cleanup?
• Where are the toxics coming from? How can they be controlled and cleaned
up? How can we prevent contamination in the future?
• What can indicator species tell us about the health of the Columbia River
Basin? What indicator species should we use to evaluate the health of the
ecosystem? Is the health of the ecosystem improving or declining? What
additional information do we need to collect so that we can determine
changes over time to better understand and deal with the toxics problem?
• What toxics reduction actions are currently under way? Have they been
successful? What actions are planned to further reduce toxics?
• What are the next steps to improve the health of the Columbia River Basin
ecosystem? What are the short- and long-term monitoring and research
needs?
This report will be used to inform people, communities, and decision-makers in
the Basin about the toxics problem and to begin a dialogue to identify potential
solutions for improving the Basin's health.
30
O
D
C
O
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
u
b
X
o
o
o
I
3.0
Toxic Contaminants
What are Toxic Contaminants?
Toxic contaminants (or toxics) are chemicals introduced to the environment
in amounts that can be harmful to fish, wildlife, or people. Some are naturally
occurring, but many of these contaminants were manufactured for use in
industry, agriculture, or for personal uses such as hygiene and medical care.
These synthetic and naturally occurring chemicals can be concentrated to toxic
levels and transported to streams through a combination of human activities
such as mining or wastewater treatment and through natural processes such as
erosion (Figure 3.1).
The fate of a contaminant is determined by its properties—for example,
whether the contaminant mixes readily with water or sediment particles,
or whether it changes form when exposed to sunlight, bacteria, or heat. A
contaminant's location and level of concentration in a river help determine
whether fish, wildlife, and people are exposed to it and, if so, whether they
experience harmful health effects.
Why are Persistent Toxics a Concern?
Chemicals with well-known effects are generally those chemicals that remain
in the environment for a long time (persistent contaminants), contaminate
food sources, and increase in concentration in fish and birds. Animals can take
in these contaminants directly while foraging for food or drinking water, or
they can eat other animals and plants that have absorbed the contaminants.
Many contaminants break down slowly, so they accumulate and concentrate
in plants, wildlife, and people. The concentration of persistent contaminants
through water, sediment, and food sources and within a plant or animal is called
bioaccumulation. An example of a persistent chemical in the Columbia River
is DDT and its breakdown product DDE, both of which are still present in the
River nearly 40 years after DDT was banned.
Contaminants in water and sediment are absorbed by microscopic plants and
animals, called phytoplankton and zooplankton, as they take in food and water.
Many of these chemicals are not easily metabolized, so they persist in living
organisms and concentrations build up in their tissues. Plankton, which are
Figure 3.1: Toxic Contaminant Pathways in the Environment
at the bottom of the food web, carry the toxic burden all their lives. As larger
animals eat the plankton, the accumulated chemicals are absorbed into each
animal's body. Fish and other animals eat the plants, microorganisms, and
small fish; the chemical moves into their bodies, and ultimately into larger fish-
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
in
phv'oplanklon
Figure 3.2: Persistent contaminants biomagnify,
increasing in concentration up the food web. The
highest biomagnification levels can be found in the
eggs of fish-eating birds.
eating birds and mammals higher in the food web. This is how contaminant
concentrations exponentially increase in fish and fish-eating animals at levels
much higher than the concentrations found in the waters the fish live in.
Through this biomagnification process, top predators, including birds of prey
and humans, can accumulate contaminants in higher concentrations than those
found in the plants and animals they consume (Figure 3.2). This toxic load
builds up in their bodies throughout their lives.
What are the Contaminants of Concern in the
Columbia River Basin?
While many contaminants have the potential to be of concern, this report
focuses primarily on four contaminants: mercury (including methylmercury);
DDT and its breakdown products; PCBs; and PBDEs.
These contaminants are of primary concern because (1) they are widely
distributed throughout the Basin; (2) they may have adverse effects on wildlife,
fish, and people; (3) they are found at levels of concern in many locations
throughout the Basin; and (4) there is an opportunity to build on current efforts
to reduce these contaminants within the Basin. [1]
In addition to these four contaminants, many other contaminants of concern
were also identified in the Basin. These included metals such as arsenic
and lead; radionuclides; several types of pesticides, including current-use
pesticides; industrial chemicals; combustion byproducts such as dioxin; and
"emerging contaminants" such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products.
These contaminants are not the focus of this report, either because there is a
lack of widespread information on their presence in the Basin or because they
are best suited to more geographically targeted studies within the Basin.
U
b
I
O
o
O
VISIT THE WEB
For more information on biomagnification, go to: http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/biomaqnification.html.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
u
b
X
o
o
o
Which Contaminants are Found in People?
Two studies recently investigated the amount and type of toxic contaminants
found in people. In 2005, ten Washington residents volunteered to have their
hair, blood, and urine tested for the presence of toxics as part of the "Pollution
in People" investigative study by the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition. [2] Each
person tested positive for at least 26, and as many as 39, of the 66 toxics
tested for, including common pesticides; plasticizers and fragrances found in
vinyl, toys, and personal care products; flame retardants found in electronics,
mattresses, and furniture; lead, mercury, and arsenic; and both DDT and PCBs.
In 2007, ten Oregon residents representing a diverse group of people from rural
and urban areas throughout the state volunteered to have their bodies tested in a
study of chemicals in people conducted by the Oregon Environmental Council
and the Oregon Collaborative for Health and the Environment. [3] Each person
had at least 9, and as many as 16, of the 29 toxics tested for in their bodies.
Similar to the Washington study, these toxics included pesticides, mercury,
plasticizers, and PCBs. Every participant had mercury, PCBs, and plasticizers
in their blood.
While some of these toxics found in people may come from consuming fish or
wildlife in the Columbia River Basin, the majority of the toxics found in people
come from everyday activities and products such as food, cosmetics, home
electronics, plastic products, and furniture. A greater effort to reduce toxics in
the products we produce and consume will be needed to limit human exposure
and intake of toxics and to reduce the amount of toxics that we put into the
ecosystem.
What about Hanford and radionuclides?
For more than 40 years, the U.S. government produced plutonium for
nuclear weapons at the Hanford Site along the Columbia River. Production
began in 1944 as part of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort
to build an atomic bomb. Plutonium production ended and cleanup
began at Hanford in 1989. Over 600 waste sites have been identified in
the immediate vicinity of the nuclear reactors. These waste sites have
contaminated the groundwater with radionuclides (nuclear waste) and
toxic chemicals, above drinking water standards. In certain areas, the
contaminated groundwater has reached the Columbia River.
The waste sites and facilities near the River are undergoing an intensive
investigation and cleanup effort. One part of that investigation will
evaluate the risk to humans and other organisms in the Columbia River
ecosystem from Hanford contaminants, including radionuclides, heavy
metals, and some organic chemicals. The risk assessment results will be
available in 2011. [5] Because of the ongoing investigation and cleanup
efforts, this State of the River Report for Toxics does not focus on effects
on the river from Hanford.
VISIT THE WEB
For more information on the "Pollution in
People" studies, visit the Toxic-Free
Legacy Coalition: http://www.
toxicfreelegacy.org/index.html and the Oregon
Environmental Council: http://www.oeconline.
org/pollutioninpeople.
For more information about the Hanford
cleanup, goto:
VISIT THE WEB http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANURNSF/
sites/Hanford and www.hanford.gov.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
What are Emerging Contaminants of Concern?
A growing number of substances that we use every day, including
Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and personal care products, are turning up in our
lakes and rivers, including the Columbia River. [4] These "emerging chemical
contaminants" often occur at very low levels. With improved detection
technologies, we are becoming more
aware of their widespread distribution
in the environment, and concerns
are increasing about their potential
impacts on fish and shellfish, wildlife,
and human health. Hormones,
antibiotics, and other drugs, which
are commonly found in animal and
human waste sources, are examples
of emerging contaminants. Current -
Emerging chemical contaminants include
Pharmaceuticals and other products that are
not properly disposed. These contaminants
are increasingly accumulating in waterways,
including the Columbia River.
use pesticides and perfluorinated
compounds—chemicals used in
consumer products to make them
stain- and stick-resistant—are other
examples of emerging contaminants.
Although several of these emerging
contaminants have been detected in water and sediment in the Lower Columbia
River, information from locations elsewhere in the Basin is extremely limited.
In response to these newly recognized contaminants, the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) is sponsoring a four-year study in the Lower Columbia River
addressing the movement of emerging contaminants from water to sediment,
and through the food web to fish-eating birds, to evaluate the threat to the
environment and human health.
Dioxins: A success story in toxics reductions
A1987 EPA study showed unsafe levels of dioxin in fish from the Columbia
River [6] Dioxins are persistent bioaccumulative toxins that can cause
developmental and reproductive problems and potentially increase the risk
of cancer. Dioxins are a byproduct of combustion and manufacturing
processes, including bleaching paper pulp with chlorine.
In response to the study, in 1991 EPA collaborated with Oregon and
Washington to require reductions in the amount of dioxin discharged by
13 paper mills to the Columbia, Snake, and Willamette Rivers. These
pulp and paper mills subsequently changed their bleaching process,
which reduced releases of dioxins into the Columbia River Basin.
Since 1991, dioxin concentrations in resident fish in the Columbia
have decreased dramatically (Figure 3.3). I7'8-9-10-11-12] The dioxin content
of osprey eggs has also shown a significant reduction in the lower
part of the river. [13] However, dioxin is extremely persistent, and fish
consumption advisories are still in place for some locations in the Basin.
U
b
I
o
o
o
Dioxin Concentrations Decreasing in the Columbia
River
• Sturg»n In Hi* Oalte Pod
r Naflwn PMffllniww Dowmtram of Longvtew
1997
Figure 3.3: Dioxin levels in Columbia River fish have decreased significantly
since pulp and paper mills changed their bleaching process, which reduced
dioxin discharges in the early 1990s.
VISIT THE WEB
For more information about dioxins in the Columbia River Basin, go to: www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/columbia.htm
and www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97342.html.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
u
b
X
o
o
o
z
5!
Fish Consumption Advisories for Toxics are Widespread
across the Basin
When a river or lake becomes contaminated, it is not only an ecological loss
but also a significant resource loss for people who depend on those fish for their
diet. Fish consumption advisories are issued for lakes and rivers where various
levels of fish consumption are no longer safe due to toxics in fish.
State health departments have issued public fish consumption advisories about
the types and amounts offish that are safe to eat from specific waters, including
waters of the Columbia River Basin (Figure 3.4). In Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and Montana, people are advised to limit meals offish such as bass,
trout, walleye, and bottom fish from certain streams and lakes due to concerns
about high levels of mercury, PCBs, and other contaminants. Because testing
has shown high mercury concentrations in certain species, and because there
is a lack of data from many water bodies, Washington has issued a statewide
mercury advisory for consumption of bass and Idaho has issued a statewide
mercury advisory for bass and walleye.
V Columbia Basin Fish
Consumption Advisories
Eugei
Ugnd
[ I Columbia Basin Boundary
^— 'Afllers with Fish
* Consumption Advisories
0 2S SO 100 ISO
Figure 3.4: State-issued fish consumption advisories are in effect throughout the Columbia
River Basin for certain contaminants and species. Not all waters have been tested, so the
absence of an advisory does not necessarily mean it is safe to consume unlimited quantities
offish from untested waters.
VISIT THE WEB
Find information about fish consumption advisories for Washington:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/fish/
Oregon: www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/envtox/fishconsumption.html
Idaho: www.ldahohealth.org and Montana: www.dphhs.mt.gov/fish2005.pdf.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
4.0
Indicators
What are Indicators?
Environmental indicators are tools used to help citizens and decision-makers
better understand the health of the environment and whether we are reaching
our environmental goals. Indicators may be specific organisms, specific media
such as water or sediment, or a specific sampling location or contaminant. The
indicators used in this report are animal species living in the Columbia River
Basin or dependent on food from the River. Studying these species over time
will help scientists track changes in the Basin's ecosystem.
Which Indicator Species are Used in this Report?
For this report, the following indicator species were selected to help assess the
health of the Basin ecosystem: juvenile salmon; resident fish, both native and
introduced (e.g., sucker, bass, and mountain whitefish); sturgeon; predatory
birds (osprey and bald eagle); aquatic mammals (mink and otter), and
sediment-dwelling shellfish (Asian clam).
Why were These Species Selected as Indicators for the
Columbia River Basin?
The indicator species listed above were chosen for this report because they
have some or most of the following characteristics:
• The species has a clear connection with important aspects of the Basin's
ecosystem.
• Information is available to describe contaminant status and/or trend
information for the species.
• The species can be used to track progress on toxics reduction activities.
• The species represents an important functional level (e.g. predator, prey) of
the Basin's food web.
• The species may be compared with the same species living in other aquatic
ecosystems.
Juvenile salmon
There are five species of salmon in the Basin: Chinook, coho, sockeye, chum,
and pink salmon. Salmon are anadromous, meaning their eggs are laid and
hatch in freshwater, and their young spend part of their early lives in freshwater
before swimming to the ocean to grow and mature (Figure 4.1). Upon returning
to their native stream, the adults spawn and then die. Cutthroat trout and
steelhead are closely related to salmon. These two species can exhibit both
anadromous and resident fish behaviors and are capable of spawning. In the
1990s, the federal fish and wildlife agencies listed several of the anadromous
salmon species as threatened and/or endangered.
Z
D
O
5
o
30
U)
"Wcs
e*posureto
Figure 4.1: Salmon spend a significant part of their adult lives in the ocean.
Therefore, it is primarily in their juvenile stages that they are exposed to
contaminants in the Columbia River Basin.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
*»
b
z
g
o
Salmon as a Food Source
Because adult salmon spend the majority of their lives in the ocean, the percentage of contaminant accumulation in their tissue from sources in the Columbia
River Basin cannot be determined. Regardless of the source, contaminants in adult salmon could pose a threat to people who consume large amounts of
salmon, especially Columbia River Basin tribal people for whom the salmon is an important part of their culture and a major food source. In addition, some
recreational anglers and their families may consume large amounts of salmon. Given this, it is important to ensure that both tribes and anglers have the most
up-to-date information to make informed decisions on how much salmon can be safely consumed.
Pacific salmon die within days of digging their nests, or "redds," and mating.
Their remains decompose, releasing nutrients for plants and other animals.
Live and dead salmon are also important food for birds and mammals such as
bald eagles, otters, and bears. In this way, salmon contribute to the health of
freshwater ecosystems.
Juvenile salmon are an important indicator of ecosystem health in the Basin
because: (1) they are relatively widespread throughout the Basin; (2) they both
forage in the River system and serve as a major food source for larger fish,
birds, and mammals; (3) they use many habitat types and therefore provide
a means of assessing environmental conditions throughout the River system
and estuary; (4) they go through physiological changes from juvenile to adult
and therefore can be more susceptible to toxic contaminants; and (5) currently,
13 species of salmon and steelhead in the Basin are listed as either threatened
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries
and the University of California (UC) Davis are investigating how chemical
contaminants affect juvenile salmon health and survival in the Lower Columbia
River. In a recently published paper, they concluded that the adverse health
effects of chemical contaminant exposure are similar to adverse health effects
associated with passage through the hydropower system in the Columbia
River. [11
Resident fish
There are many native and normative resident fish species in the Basin,
including rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, large scale
sucker, bass, walleye, and northern pikeminnow. They are a common source
of food for people and wildlife and are widely distributed throughout the
Basin. Resident fish live their entire lives in the Basin and thus are exposed
to contaminants present in the water and sediments through their food, by
breathing in oxygenated water through their gills, and by continuous contact
with the water and sediments. In many of the Basin's water bodies, these
resident species have accumulated levels of some contaminants that are
harmful to predators and to people.
Resident fish are useful indicators because: (1) they are widely distributed
throughout the Basin; (2) most of the existing data on contaminants in
the Basin are from resident fish species; (3) many species of resident fish
spend their lives in relatively small areas, so their tissue concentrations are
indicative of the contaminant loads in those areas; and (4) they occupy a
central place in the food web, are exposed to contaminants through their diet,
and in turn expose those who eat them, including people, to any accumulated
contaminants.
VISIT THE WEB
For more information about salmon in the Columbia River Basin, go to:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Draft-Plans.cfm.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
White Sturgeon (photo courtesy of Gretchen Kruse,
Free Run Aquatic Research)
Sturgeon
White sturgeon are the largest
freshwater fish in North
America, occurring in Pacific
Coast rivers from central
California to Alaska's Aleutian
Islands. Some white sturgeon
spend their entire life cycle in
freshwater, while others use
estuarine or coastal saltwater
resources for growth and food,
only entering freshwater to
reproduce.
White sturgeon inhabit the
Columbia River and its larger
tributaries, such as the Snake and Kootenai Rivers. Sturgeon can live
100 years and grow up to 1,500 pounds and 15 feet long. Sturgeon are
primarily bottom-dwelling fish. Juvenile sturgeon feed primarily on plankton
and aquatic insects, whereas adults feed mainly on live or decaying fish,
aquatic insects, and shellfish (e.g., Asian clams).
Sturgeon are not reproducing successfully throughout the Columbia River
system. In Canada's portion of the River, there has been no successful
reproduction recorded in the wild over the last decade. For similar reasons,
the Kootenai River population of white sturgeon has been listed on the federal
endangered species list since 1994.
White sturgeon are a good Columbia River indicator species for several
reasons: (1) they are widely distributed in large rivers of the Basin; (2) they
are long-lived and thus have prolonged exposure to toxic contaminants;
(3) sturgeon migration is curtailed by dams in some portions of the Basin,
allowing for evaluation of local toxics effects; (4) they are near the top of the
food web; and (5) effects of contaminants on sturgeon are likely similar for
other benthic, bottom-dwelling species.
Predatory birds—osprey and bald eagle in the Lower Columbia
River
Osprey and bald eagle are large birds of prey that live in much of the Basin,
but they are concentrated in the Lower Columbia River. While the bald eagle
is found exclusively in North America, the osprey has a nearly world-wide
distribution. Bald eagles feed primarily on live or scavenged fish and aquatic
birds, while the osprey has a diet almost exclusively of live fish captured near
the nest.
Osprey and bald eagles are useful indicators for evaluating the health of an
aquatic ecosystem for several reasons: (1) they are widely distributed; (2) they
are long-lived (bald eagles, for instance, can live up to 28 years in the wild);
(3) they primarily prey on fish and other aquatic predators, usually near their
nests; and (4) they are at the top of the food web and are therefore exposed to
high concentrations of contaminants through their diet.
Osprey
Bald Eagle
(photos courtesy of NOAA/Dept. of Commerce)
Aquatic mammals—mink and river otter
Mink and river otter are members of the weasel family. They are excellent
swimmers and are active predators that feed on fish, frogs, crayfish, and
sometimes small mammals and waterfowl. The average lifespan of mink in the
D
O
5
o
3D
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Z
D
I
3
Mink (photo courtesy of U.S. Forest
Service)
North American River Otter (photo courtesy of
USGS)
wild is three to six years, whereas river otter average over eight years. Both are
found throughout the Basin in appropriate habitat; however, mink populations
have not recovered from a decline in the 1950s and 1960s, even though suitable
habitat is available for them in the Lower Columbia River.
Mink and otter are useful indicators of ecosystem health in the Basin because
they: (1) prey on other aquatic species; (2) are particularly sensitive to
contaminants which accumulate and can impact their reproduction; (3) have
smaller home ranges compared to osprey and bald eagles; and (4) occur
throughout the Basin.
Sediment-dwelling shellfish—Asian clam
First found in North America at Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in 1924,
the nonnative, freshwater Asian clam is a small, light-colored bivalve now
abundant throughout North America. It is widely distributed throughout a large
portion of the Basin and has an average life span of three to five years. Located
primarily in flat-bottom sand or clay areas, Asian clams feed by filtering
particles from the surrounding water. They also routinely bury in the sediment
for extended periods and filter sediment pore water.
Asian clams are a good indicator species for several reasons: (1) they are
filter feeders and, like other freshwater shellfish, can collect and concentrate
contaminants in their bodies; (2) they are not very mobile, so data on clams
can be more useful to pinpoint the location where they were exposed to
the contaminants than similar or more mobile species; (3) because of their
distribution and feeding habits, they are a useful indicator of sediment and
water quality conditions in the Basin; and (4) they occupy a lower position in
the food web than other indicator species.
Lamprey
Pacific lamprey are scaleless, jawless fish that are culturally important to the Columbia River tribes. Lamprey have declined drastically in the past 20 years and
are no longer found in many streams in their traditional range. Pacific lamprey spawn in freshwater streams. Juvenile lamprey (ammocoetes) spend their first
five to seven years in the sediment as filter feeders. Adult lamprey migrate to the ocean, where they feed parasitically on other fish for up to three years before
returning to freshwater streams to spawn.
Because lamprey spend their developing years in the Basin's streams, there are concerns that toxics may be a contributing factor in their declining numbers.
Studies in locations outside the Columbia River Basin have documented the sensitivity of juvenile lamprey to toxics in their environment. [2-31 The unique life
cycle of the lamprey with its potential for exposure to Basin contaminants distinguishes it as a potential indicator of ecosystem health. However, very little
data have been collected on toxics in lamprey in the Columbia Basin. Because of this lack of data, lamprey are not discussed as an environmental indicator in
this report. Given the cultural importance of lamprey to the Columbia River tribes, however, we will evaluate whether lamprey should be added as an indicator
species after additional data on toxics in lamprey are collected and evaluated.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
5.0
Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs
The contaminants discussed in this report—mercury, DDT, PCBs, and
PBDEs—come from a variety of sources and can potentially result in health
concerns for wildlife or people. Table 5.1 summarizes the sources and health
concerns of these four contaminants.
In order to evaluate whether the toxics reduction efforts currently under
way in the Basin are having an impact or if other activities are needed, it is
important to understand whether the levels of contaminants are increasing or
decreasing over time. While considerable information has been collected over
the past 20 years, the data are limited with regard to whether the contaminants
are increasing or decreasing Basin-wide. There is some trend information
for specific areas of the Basin such as the Lower Columbia. While not
comprehensive, this report highlights trend data when such data are available.
Table 5.1: Contaminants of concern summary
Contaminant
Mercury
Sou rces/Pat h ways
Atmospheric deposition from sources inside and outside the region is
thought to be a major pathway for mercury. Other possible sources/
pathways include releases from past and current mining and smelting
activities; erosion of native soils; agricultural activities; discharge of
wastewater and stormwater; and resuspension and recirculation of
sediments.
Concern
Mercury can cause neurological, developmental, and
reproductive problems in people and animals.
Ol
b
W
|
30
m
D
w
-n
O
30
m
30
O
c
30
D
D
TJ
O
8
D
TJ
00
D
m
DDT
DDT was banned in the United States in 1972, but DDT and its breakdown
products are still found in the environment in sediments and soil. The main
pathway to the River is via runoff from agricultural land.
DDT thins bird eggshells and causes reproductive and
development problems. It is linked to cancer, liver disease, and
hormone disruption in laboratory-test animals.
PCBs
PCBs were banned in the United States in 1976, but they are still widely
found in the environment in fish tissue and sediments. Industrial spills
and improper disposal are known sources locally, while incineration and
atmospheric deposition bring PCBs from distant sources. Stormwater runoff
and erosion may also be important pathways.
PCBs can harm immune systems, reproduction, and
development; increase the risk of cancer; and disrupt hormone
systems in both people and aquatic life.
PBDEs
PBDE flame retardants are present in many consumer products, including
electronics, textiles, and plastics. There is limited information on the
transport pathways to the River, but some possible pathways include
atmospheric deposition, municipal and industrial wastewater, stormwater
discharge, and runoff.
PBDEs accumulate in the environment, harming mammals'
reproduction, development, and neurological systems. They can
increase the risk of cancer and disrupt hormone systems.
VISIT THE WEB
Additional information and updates about mercury, DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs can be found by visiting EPA's Columbia River
website: http://www.epa.aov/reaion10/columbia.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Ol
b
i
DO
m
1
O
DO
S
m
O
I
D
D
TJ
O
D
TJ
03
D
m
Mercury: Most Fish Consumption Advisories in the
Basin are due to High Concentrations of Mercury
Mercury can affect the nervous system and brain, and even low doses can
impair the physical and mental development of human fetuses and infants
exposed via the mother's diet. Fish consumption advisories generally
discourage the consumption of larger fish and predatory fish, as they typically
contain higher concentrations of mercury. Figure 5.1 shows mercury
concentrations found in fish from U.S. waters in the Columbia River Basin.
As a metallic element, mercury is never destroyed, but cycles between a
number of chemical and physical forms. Mercury in the aquatic environment
can be converted by bacteria to a more toxic form, called methylmercury. This
process is important because methylmercury can biomagnify, so predators at
the top of the food web will have much higher concentrations of mercury in
their bodies than are found in the surrounding water or the algae and insects at
the base of the food web.
Methylmercury is the dominant form of mercury found in fish, and the
concentrations of methylmercury found in fish are directly related to the
amount available in the aquatic environment. The rate at which methylation
of mercury occurs varies according to water body characteristics such as the
amount of organic matter, sulfate, and iron present and the acidity, temperature,
and water velocity.
Several pathways introduce mercury into the Columbia River Basin
Mercury enters the Columbia River and its tributaries via several pathways,
including atmospheric deposition, runoff, wastewater discharges, industrial
discharges, and mines. Based on available data, atmospheric deposition appears
to be the major pathway for mercury loading to the Columbia River Basin. [1]
Mercury air deposition includes both emissions from industrial facilities within
and near the Basin and fallout from the pool of global mercury that has been
transported from sources as far away as Asia and Europe.
EPA estimates that the total mercury air deposition in the Columbia River Basin
is 11,500 pounds per year. [2] Approximately 84 percent of that load comes
from global sources. At a watershed scale, however, local and regional sources
Mercury Concentrations
in Fish Tissue - Data
from 1965 to Present
^'MONTANA
Legend
0-0.3ppm -less than the
' E PA human h*aHh guideline
tor safe (I* cwtsumptfon
• 0.31 -I.Oppm
ft 1.01 -e.4ppm
Figure 5.1: Seventy-five percent offish consumption advisories in the Columbia River Basin are
due to mercury contamination. In the fish tested, high levels of mercury have been consistently
found downstream of historic mining areas in the Willamette and Owyhee River Basins. There is
no information about mercury levels in fish from waters that are unmarked on the map.
can contribute the majority of mercury deposited on the local landscape. For
example, a cement plant in Durkee, Oregon, emits more than 2,500 pounds
of mercury per year. [3] Although just over 140 pounds of this amount are
deposited in the sub-basin in which this plant is located, that deposition
constitutes an estimated 62 percent of the air-deposited load in that area. [4]
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
As for regional sources, in northern Nevada near the Basin's southeast
boundary, several gold mines emit mercury from their ore roasters. One
of these mines discharges more than 1,700 pounds of mercury per year. [3]
Although only part of this load ends up in the Columbia River Basin, almost
160 pounds are deposited in the nearby Upper Owyhee watershed in Idaho,
accounting for 58 percent of the atmospheric mercury loading there. [4] In
Idaho, the largest source of mercury emissions is an elemental phosphorus
plant in Soda Springs. This plant emits more than 900 pounds per year [3] and
contributes 36 percent of the mercury deposited in the adjacent watershed. [4]
Across the United States, coal-fired power plants are a major local source, but
they are less significant sources in the Northwest because so few are located
here. There is a single coal-fired power plant in the Columbia River Basin
located near Boardman, in eastern Oregon. This plant emits about 168 pounds
of mercury per year. [3] There are also three coal-fired power plants near the
boundary of the Basin (one in Washington and two in Nevada) that could
contribute some mercury load to the watershed, depending upon their emissions
and prevailing wind patterns.
Not all of the mercury that falls onto land gets transported to water bodies.
Forests and other undisturbed landscapes can retain mercury for years.
Other point sources directly discharge mercury to rivers and streams.
Wastewater treatment plants, industrial discharges, and stormwater runoff from
streets and other developed areas are more direct sources of mercury to streams
than air deposition or erosion. These sources may be low in concentration, but
high in volume. Nine of the 23 largest municipal and industrial wastewater
point sources located in the U.S. portion of the Columbia River have reported
discharging a total of 33 pounds of mercury per year. [5] This may be an
underestimate, however, because mercury reporting is not always required
and mercury detection limits are often too high to provide useful information.
Although these sources contribute less mercury to the basin than the air
pathway, they may be significant at a local scale because they discharge directly
to water bodies. A smelter just north of the Canadian border directly discharged
an average of 184 pounds of mercury per year to the Upper Columbia from
1994 through 1998. This load was reduced to an average of 38 pounds of
mercury per year for the 1999-2007 time period. [6] Historic mercury and gold
mining can also be important sources that load mercury directly to streams and
have significant impacts at a watershed scale.
Mercury is also still found in several commonly used products such as
fluorescent light tubes, compact fluorescent lamps, thermometers, thermostats,
switches in vehicles, some batteries and pumps, and medical equipment such
as blood pressure measuring devices. Although mercury has been or will be
removed from some of these products, many of the older versions still contain
mercury. If these older products are not handled and disposed of properly, they
can add mercury to the environment.
Regional trends and spatial patterns of mercury levels in the Basin
can be difficult to evaluate
Although data on mercury concentrations are available for resident fish
species in the Basin from the 1960s to the present, there are few locations with
consistent, comparable data from different time periods that can be used to
evaluate changes in mercury concentrations over time. Two exceptions, noted
in Figure 5.2, are mercury concentrations in northern pikeminnow from the
Willamette River Basin and mercury concentrations in osprey eggs in the Lower
Columbia River, both of which have been increasing in the last decade. [7A91
The osprey egg concentrations, however, were still below levels that are of
concern in birds. Another study shows that mercury concentrations increased in
pikeminnows (1.12 to 1.91 parts per million [ppm]) from the Upper Willamette
River between 1993 and 2001. [10]
The Columbia River sturgeon population living in the pool behind Bonneville
Dam has much higher concentrations of mercury in their livers than sturgeon
in the estuary or other Columbia River reservoir pools. Sturgeon tissues
from the Kootenai, Upper Columbia, and Snake Rivers contained mercury
concentrations in the range of 0.02 to 0.6 ppm, but Bonneville pool sturgeon
have mean concentrations of 4 ppm. I11'12'13'14! Also, high mercury levels in
liver and other organs from Lower Columbia River white sturgeon are
correlated with lower physical health indices and reproductive defects in the
[15,16,17,18,19]
Ol
b
W
|
3D
m
I
m
30
O
c
30
D
D
TJ
O
00
W
D
TJ
00
D
m
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Ol
b
9
>
D
30
m
1
s
30
S
m
O
c
30
D
D
TJ
O
03
D
TJ
03
D
m
(/)
Increasing Mercury Concentrations at
Columbia Basin Sites
o>
"« 0.8 i
E
a.
a.
0.6 --
0.4
D 1997/1998
• 2003
II2004
Osprey Eggs - Lower
Columbia River
Northern Pikeminnow
Willamette River
Figure 5.2: Mercury levels in Willamette River northern pikeminnow and Lower
Columbia River osprey eggs have increased over the last decade. Mercury level
trends have not been studied in other Columbia River Basin organisms over the
Mercury concentrations vary across the basin, but only in some cases are the
sources known. For example, in reservoirs in the Owyhee River basin [20-211 and
in the Snake River downstream of the Owyhee confluence, mercury levels are
found above EPA's 0.3-ppm mercury human health guideline due to mercury
used in gold mining there in the 1800s (Figure 5.3). [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]
Wa s h i n g I o n
fHtzHHtf
Res^s'.Mllor
30 *» BOD
SMttltlvt'MUt
CHU Cotocttd 189Hti«iM9ti 200?.
i; matt H-..I Ui i>ji*ein* lor sate Fi&h Conwmptton * 0.3 ppm
d a h o
j
Mercury in Snake River Fish Showing
Area of Higher Concentrations
Fish Sampling Sites, bass perch. Iroul.
wtiitelish, sucker, catfish and chub
> River Basin
.aft
Figure 5.3: Mercury levels are highest in fish collected at Brownlee Dam reservoir, down-
stream from the Owyhee River inflow. The Owyhee River is contaminated by mercury
from historic mining.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
DDT: Banned in 1972, This Pesticide Still Poses a Threat
to the Environment
DDT is the most well-known of a class of pesticides that were widely
used from the 1940s until EPA banned them in the United States in 1972.
However, DDT continues to be used in other parts of the world. DDT and
its breakdown products—dichlorophenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and
dichlorophenyldichloroethane (ODD)—have been linked to neurological and
developmental disorders in birds and other animals. DDT has also been linked
to eggshell thinning that caused declines in many bird species and inspired
Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring, which documented detrimental
effects of pesticides on bird species and ultimately led to the banning of DDT.
The chemical structure of DDT is very stable in the environment, which is why
DDT and its breakdown products DDE and ODD continue to be an ecological
and human health threat. Figure 5.4 shows DDE concentrations found in fish
from U.S. waters in the Columbia River Basin.
Soil erosion from agricultural runoff is the main source of DDT into
the Basin
The primary source of DDT to the Columbia River Basin is the considerable
acreage of agricultural soils in which DDT accumulated over three decades of
intensive use (1940s to early 1970s). DDT reaches the River when the soils are
eroded by wind and water. Some irrigation practices increase soil erosion on
agricultural lands. Other potential sources of DDT are areas where pesticides
were handled or stored, such as barns or agricultural supply sheds, or areas
where containers or unused product were disposed. The main pathway for these
sources is erosion and runoff. Disturbance of contaminated sediments within
the Columbia River and its tributaries may also release DDT to the water
column, which can directly or indirectly be taken up by fish.
DDT levels are declining with better soil conservation practices, but
DDT still exceeds human health levels of concern
The ban on DDT combined with significant improvements in soil conservation
by farmers reduced DDT loading to the Columbia River Basin. [1] A number of
state water quality improvement plans currently aim to reduce DDT
DDE Concentrations
In Fish Tissue in the
Columbia Basin
li OREGON -
V- . ' :
DDE concentrations in fish (issue |>vet
weight) - data from 1990 ID present
0 - 32 ppb - Less than Ihe EPA
* human health guideline for sate
fi&h consumption
• 33-500 ppb
• tdt -8.695ppb
Figure 5.4: High levels of DDE in fish are found in areas where DDT pesticide use was
historically high, such as in eastern Washington and the Snake River Plain. There is no
information about DDE levels in fish from waters that are unmarked on the map.
compounds, and continued monitoring is critical to demonstrating the
effectiveness of these actions.
Concentrations of DDT compounds in the Columbia River and its wildlife
have decreased over the last 20 years. However, DDT is still regularly detected
in the fish, plants, and sediments of the River and many of its tributaries,
indicating that DDT continues to cycle through the food web. In addition, fish
consumption advisories continue to be issued for DDT in Lake Chelan.
Oi
b
W
|
DO
m
1
-n
O
DO
m
DO
O
c
DO
D
D
TJ
O
D
TJ
CD
D
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Ol
b
3
>
D
30
m
1
s
30
s
m
30
O
I
D
D
TJ
O
DO
w
D
TJ
03
D
m
DDT levels have declined in several of the key species of resident fish in areas
of the Columbia River Basin. DDT contamination has been most intensively
studied in the Yakima River, which is a major tributary to the Columbia in
Washington State and is in one of the most diverse agricultural areas of the
country. [2] Data collected in the 1980s showed that fish in the Yakima River
Basin had some of the highest concentrations of DDT in the nation. [3]
In the late 1990s, a partnership of farmers, irrigation districts, the Confederated
Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and many governmental agencies
initiated changes in farming and irrigation practices that have dramatically
reduced erosion from farmland in the Yakima Basin (see Section 6.0 of this
report). Sampling of resident fish conducted between 1996 and 2006 showed
an overall decline in DDT levels in several species, including bass and sucker
(Figure 5.5).[4-51
Decreasing DDE In Fish Fillets from the Lower
Yakima River
.
Q.
LU
O
0
Ol
O)
S
S
EPA human health
guideline for safe
fish consumption =
32ppb
1998
2006
Figure 5.5: DDE levels in Yakima River fish have declined significantly since 1998.
By contrast, liver tissues from Columbia River white sturgeon residing in the
pool upstream of Bonneville Dam contained much higher concentrations of
DDT than other sub-populations of sturgeon residing in the Columbia River
Basin (Figure 5.6). I6'7'8'9'10'11'12-13] The cause of these elevated concentrations is
not known.
DDT is also a problem for fish-eating birds such as bald eagles and osprey.
Severe declines in eagle populations in the Lower Columbia River occurred
from the 1950s to!975. Studies conducted along the Lower Columbia River
from 1980 to 1987 found elevated concentrations of DDE in bald eagles. [14]
High concentrations of DDE are associated with eggshell thinning and low
reproductive success.
High Concentrations of DDT in Columbia
River White Sturgeon Behind Bonneville Dam
Estuary
Bonneville
Pool
Dalles Pool
John Day
Pool
Figure 5.6: Sturgeon in the pool behind Bonneville Dam have much higher
levels of DDT and other contaminants (such as mercury and PCBs) than do
sturgeon downstream of the dam or sturgeon in pools behind upstream dams.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Successful reproduction of bald eagles along the Columbia River was also
found to be considerably lower than the statewide average for Oregon. [15-161
DDE concentrations in Columbia River eagle eggs in the 1980s were the
highest recorded for bald eagles in the western United States, surpassed only by
levels found in eagle eggs from highly contaminated areas of the eastern United
States. [141
In a similar study in the mid-1990s, researchers found that total DDE
concentrations in Columbia River eagle eggs declined significantly in
comparison to concentrations found in the mid-1980s (Figure 5.7). [15-161
Prior to the use of DDT, nesting osprey were common along the Lower
Columbia and Willamette Rivers, [17] but populations declined dramatically
from the 1950s to the 1970s. As with eagles, DDT was the primary cause of
osprey population decline because of eggshell thinning. Figure 5.8 shows the
Decreases in Total DDT in Eggs of Lower
Columbia River Eagles and Osprey
Eagle Eggs
Osprey Eggs
Qsprty N*sls on tie Willamette Fbrti
Eagle Naete on lite CohiniMa River
Figure 5.7: DDT levels have decreased significantly in eagle and osprey eggs from the
Lower Columbia River over the past 20 years.
(photos courtesy of Peter McGowan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Figures 5.8 and 5.9: Nesting pairs of osprey and bald eagle have increased significantly from
near-regional extinction in the 1970s, due to reductions of DDT and other contaminants in the
environment.
increase in nesting osprey along the Willamette River, an important tributary
of the Columbia River, from 1976 to 2001. Similar trends have been found in
the Columbia River. A 1976 survey of the 300-mile-long Oregon side of the
Columbia River found only one occupied osprey nest. [18-191 In 2004, there were
225 osprey nests in the same area. Scientists recorded a 69 percent decrease in
DDT levels in osprey eggs from the Lower Columbia River between 1997 and
2004, coinciding with an increase from 94 to 225 osprey nests. [20]
Since the late 1970s, the number of bald eagle nesting pairs along the Lower
Columbia River also has increased (Figure 5.9). In 2006, there were over 133
nesting pairs of bald eagles, up from 22 in 1980. However, researchers also
found that long-established eagle pairs that had been breeding for many years
along the Lower Columbia River produced about half the number of young as
eagles that had more recently begun nesting there. The greater reproductive
success of the newer nesting bald eagle population is attributed in large part to
reduced exposure to DDT. [16]
01
b
W
|
30
m
1
~n
O
33
m
30
O
.1
D
D
TJ
O
D
TJ
CD
D
m
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Ol
b
30
m
1
s
30
m
30
O
I
D
D
-H
TJ
O
DO
w
D
TJ
03
D
m
PCBs: Stable PCB Compounds Continue to Persist in
the Environment
PCBs are a class of man-made compounds known for their chemical and
thermal stability. PCBs were manufactured to take advantage of these
properties in such applications as electric transformers and capacitors, heat
exchange and hydraulic fluids, lubricants, fluorescent light ballasts, fire
retardants, plastics, epoxy paints, and other materials. Before PCBs were
banned in the 1970s, approximately 700 million tons of PCBs were produced in
the United States, and hundreds of tons remain in service today.
Environmental concentrations of PCBs decrease very slowly because they are
stable and persistent. PCBs tend to concentrate in the fatty tissue of fish and
other animals and can be passed from mother to young. PCBs have been linked
to liver damage, disruption of neuro-development, reproductive problems, and
some forms of cancer. PCB levels have triggered fish and shellfish advisories in
the Lower Columbia River and several other water bodies in the Basin.
Figure 5.10 shows PCB concentrations found in fish from U.S. waters in the
Columbia River Basin.
PCBs enter the ecosystem from multiple sources and through
multiple pathways
PCBs in the Columbia River Basin tend to be associated with industrial
locations, where spills or historic handling practices (such as disposing of
PCB-contaminated materials in unlined landfills near the River or dumping
such materials directly into the River) were more likely to occur. Several
examples of known PCB disposal sites in the Lower Columbia River include
Bradford Island at Bonneville Dam; Alcoa Smelter in Vancouver, Washington;
and Portland Harbor on the Willamette. In addition, historically, many pieces
of electrical equipment used to generate power at dams in the Columbia River
Basin used cooling and insulating oil that contained PCBs. Past practices such
as the use of PCB-laden paint in fish hatcheries and the use of oils tainted with
PCBs to control dust on unpaved roads also led to PCB contamination.
Inefficient incineration of PCB-containing materials, followed by atmospheric
deposition, is the primary means by which PCBs from other parts of the world
Legend
0-5.30 FVb
Ihe
EPAliuiiwnlieallh
, ^
'
Total PCB Concentrations J.L-
"m Fish Tissue (wel weight)
Dm from 1990 to Present
o & so 100 ISP NEVADA
Figure 5.10: A legacy contaminant, PCB hot spots correspond to areas of historic industrial
use or disposal sites. There is no information about PCB levels in fish from waters that are
unmarked on the map.
reach the Columbia River Basin. Regionally, snowmelt, stormwater runoff and
discharge, and soil erosion are pathways by which PCBs deposited on land are
transported to water. PCBs entering rivers and streams from stormwater runoff
and discharge are a growing concern. PCBs are not very water-soluble, but
they do adhere to organic matter and sediment particles, so they have a high
potential to be transported when sediment is transported (such as during storms
and floods) and then accumulate in pools or reservoirs.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
PCBs in fish are declining but still exceed EPA human and
ecological health concern levels in some areas
In the early 1990s, the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) found
high concentrations of PCBs in rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and large-
scale sucker in the Spokane River. [1] The Department took steps to identify
and clean up hazardous waste sites and reduce PCB inputs from municipal
and industrial wastewater dischargers. As a result, concentrations of PCBs in
rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and sucker have decreased between 1992
and 2005 in almost every reach of the Spokane River (Figure 5.11). I1'2'3'4'5!
As with mercury and DDT, several studies have revealed that Columbia River
sturgeon living in the pool behind Bonneville Dam contained much higher
Decreasing PCBs in Rainbow Trout Fillets from the rSnemite Reach of
ih- Spokane River
SCO i
EPA Human H*alth
Guid«fe» fof Fish
Consumption - 5.3 ppb
1993
1994
1996
1999
2003
2005
Figure 5.11: PCB levels in rainbow trout from throughout the Spokane River have declined
due to hazardous waste cleanup efforts and a reduction in the amount of PCBs discharged in
wastewater.
concentrations of PCBs in their livers than sturgeon in other areas of the
Basin. [6]
Recent studies indicate that juvenile fall Chinook salmon from throughout
the Basin are accumulating toxic contaminants, including PCBs, in their
tissues. [7'8-91 As shown in Figure 5.12, PCB concentrations in juvenile salmon
are higher in out-migrating juveniles sampled in the Lower Columbia River
near the confluence of the Willamette River than in juveniles sampled
at Warrendale just below the Bonneville Dam. Two studies of PCB
High Uptake of PCBs in Juvenile Salmon Migrating
through the Lower Columbia River
12,000
v
0
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Ol
b
3
>
D
30
m
1
s
30
s
m
30
O
I
D
D
TJ
O
DO
w
D
TJ
03
D
m
concentrations in water also showed higher dissolved PCBs near the Portland/
Vancouver area and downstream of the Willamette River than were found
upstream near Bonneville Dam. [7-101 This suggests that there are significant
sources of PCBs in the Lower Columbia River.
There are currently no data to indicate whether PCB levels in the mainstem
of the Columbia River are increasing or decreasing. However, at some sites
PCB concentrations in salmon were as high as or higher than those observed
in juvenile salmon from industrial contamination sites in Puget Sound
(Duwamish Waterway Superfund site in Seattle, Washington). At several sites
in the Columbia River, salmon PCB concentrations were above levels at which
juvenile salmon may be harmed (Figure 5.13).
• fCBs r Jiwnfe Salmon Sampled in tie Lower Columbia
', Sr«-*r Compared to Otto Locaton* in Hi* Northiwst
PCBs can also adversely affect the ability of mink and otter to reproduce.
Mink are especially sensitive to the toxic effects of PCBs. Studies in the late
1970s showed that PCBs in mink from the Lower Columbia River were as
high as those levels that are reported to cause total reproductive failure in
female mink. [11]
Concentrations of PCBs in mink and otter have declined dramatically
since the 1970s (Figure 5.14). I11'12'13! Despite these declines in contaminant
concentrations and the presence of suitable habitat, mink remain scarce in the
Lower Columbia. While there is a relatively dense otter population distributed
throughout the Lower Columbia River, otters there have higher PCB
concentrations compared to otters in other areas of Oregon and Washington. [14]
PCB Concentrations in Wildlife of the Lower
Columbia River
• 1978/1979
• 1985/1987
• 1990/1992
D 1994/1999
• 2004
Otter Liver Mink Liver Eagle Eggs Osprey Eggs
Figure 5.13: PCBs in juvenile salmon from several Lower Columbia
River sites are similar to levels found in juvenile salmon at the
Duwamish Waterway Superfund site in Seattle, Washington.
Figure 5.14: PCBs are decreasing in multiple fish-eating predators from the Lower Columbia
River, due to decreased PCB use and contaminated site cleanup.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Like DDT, PCBs bioaccumulate in bald eagles and osprey. While PCB
concentrations in eagle eggs from the Lower Columbia River were the highest
recorded in the western United States in the 1980s, PCB levels are decreasing
in both of these top predators (Figure 5.14). I15'16'17!
In 2005, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) researchers used the
Asian clam to describe distribution patterns of PCBs in the Lower Columbia
River. [1S1 After analyzing samples from 36 stations, the researchers found
distinctive spatial patterns related to the specific site from which the clams
were collected. All clams collected had detectable levels of PCBs. Especially
high levels of PCBs, ranging from 382 to 3,500 parts per billion (ppb), were
found downstream of the Alcoa plant, a WADOE hazardous waste cleanup site
(Figure 5.15) on the Washington side of the River.
Although "safe" levels for PCB consumption have not been formally
established, the Clark County Health Office, State of Washington, recommends
that seafood with PCB levels of up to 50 ppb should generally be eaten no more
than two or three times per month.
VISIT THE WEB
For more information on PCBs and the
Alcoa cleanup, go to:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swf a/indus-
trial/alum alcoavan.htm.
J Asian Clam Total PCB Concentrations Show
Hot Spot near Former Superfund Clean-Up Site
'-V
N
lot safe fish
consumption =
5.3 ppb
/•
10
ALCOA VANCOUVER
SMELTER FORMER
SUPERFUND
CLEAN-UP SITE
•'•
Vancouver
Portland
2-
Ol
b
W
|
30
m
1
-n
O
m
30
O
.1
D
D
TJ
O
D
TJ
CD
D
m
Figure 5.15: Clams collected in the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area indicate PCB
hot spots near the Alcoa plant, a WADOE hazardous waste cleanup site.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Ol
b
3
>
D
30
m
1
s
30
s
m
30
O
I
D
D
TJ
O
DO
w
D
TJ
03
D
m
PBDEs: Concern over Flame Retardants is Growing
PBDEs are a commonly used flame retardant. Many industries and states,
including Washington, are phasing out products containing PBDEs. PBDEs are
of concern because their levels have increased rapidly in soil, air, wildlife, and
human tissue and breast milk.
The health effects of PBDEs have not been studied in people. Laboratory
animal studies show neurological, behavioral, reproductive, and developmental
effects and even cancer at very high doses.
PBDEs are in many everyday products
Since the 1960s, PBDEs have been added to plastics and fabrics to reduce the
likelihood that these materials will catch fire or burn easily when exposed to
flame or high heat. PBDEs are used in electrical appliances; TV sets; building
materials; home, auto, and business upholstery; and rug and drapery textiles.
They are released slowly to the environment from production, use, and disposal
of these products. PBDEs, like PCBs, remain in the environment for a long
time. PBDEs accumulate in all animals, but the concentrations continue to
increase as an animal ages. However, unlike PCBs, EPA does not currently
regulate PBDEs and only recently published a standard method for measuring
PBDEs in environmental samples.
Figure 5.16 shows PBDE concentrations found in fish from U.S. waters in the
Columbia River Basin.
Information on how PBDEs enter the environment is limited
While there is limited understanding on how PBDEs enter the environment,
several studies have indicated that municipal wastewater may be a significant
pathway. I1'2'3'4'5! PBDEs in dust and air are a direct pathway of exposure to
people, but the importance of air and atmospheric deposition of PBDEs as
a source to the Columbia River Basin is unknown. Runoff from municipal
sewage sludge placed on land is also being examined as a possible source of
PBDEs to surface water. [4'5-61 A study of PBDE contamination in the Canadian
portion of the Columbia River found a correlation between high PBDE levels
and areas where septic systems were concentrated near the River. m
Total PBDE Conctrttmllons
In Fish fls-SfiH |wtl wtlgnt)
Figure 5.16: PBDEs are being detected and are increasing in fish in the Columbia River Basin.
There is no information about PBDE levels in fish from waters that are unmarked on the map.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Ol
b
3
Levels of PBDEs in the Columbia River are increasing
In 1996, 1999, and 2005, the WADOE studied PBDE concentrations in
sucker, mountain whitefish, and rainbow trout in the Spokane River
(Figure 5.17). [8'9-101 PBDE levels in these species are increasing in most
reaches of the Spokane River. The most dramatic increases were found in
mountain whitefish downstream from the Spokane metropolitan area at
Ninemile Reach.
Although relatively little PBDE data have been collected in the Columbia
River Basin, the studies show that PBDEs are present and are increasing in
Total PBDEs in Fish from the Ninemile Reach
of the Spokane River
Rainbow Trout
Fillets
Sucker Whole
Mountain
Whitefish Fillets
the waters of the Columbia and several of its tributaries. m The studies further
show that PBDEs are not only accumulating in larger fish[9] but are being taken
up by juvenile salmon as well. [11]
In 2005, PBDEs were detected in all Asian clams collected from 36 stations
throughout the Lower Columbia River. [12] The Lower Columbia appears to be
an important source of PBDEs for salmon on their migration to the ocean based
on the difference in PBDE concentrations in juvenile salmon above and below
Bonneville Dam (Figure 5.18).
High Uptake of PBDEs in Juvenile Salmon
Migrating Through the Lower Columbia River
Warrendale Near
Bonneville Dam
At or Below
Willamette River
Confluence
Lower
Columbia
Mid-
Columbia
Snake
Upper
Columbia
Salmon Stock - Spawning Area
3D
m
1
-n
O
30
m
3D
O
c
3D
D
D
-H
TJ
O
DO
D
TJ
DO
D
m
W
Figure 5.17: PBDE levels in Spokane River fish have increased since 1996.
Figure 5.18: Migrating juvenile salmon, regardless of where they began their migration,
consistently show higher levels of PBDEs when captured in the Lower Columbia River
below the Bonneville Dam.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Ol
b
W
|
30
m
1
s
so
m
3D
O
I
D
D
TJ
O
00
W
D
TJ
00
D
m
Summary of Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs
Table 5.2 summarizes the status of concentration levels for the four contaminants discussed in this report and their concentration trends where available.
Table 5.2. Summary of status and concentration trends for the selected indicator species
Indicator Species
Resident fish - bass, whitefish, sucker, trout,
walleye, northern pikeminnow
Juvenile salmon
Sturgeon
Predatory birds - bald eagle and osprey
Fish-eating mammals - mink and otter
Sediment-dwelling shellfish - Asian clam
Status
Increasing concentrations in fish tissue and bird eggs have
been seen in the Snake and Willamette River Basins and other
locations affected by regional sources compared to other areas
within the Basin.
Concentration Trend over Time
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
Note: An upward-pointing red arrow indicates an increasing trend.
Indicator Species
Resident fish - bass, whitefish, sucker, trout,
walleye, northern pikeminnow
Juvenile salmon
Sturgeon
Predatory birds - bald eagle and osprey
Fish-eating mammals - mink and otter
Sediment-dwelling shellfish - Asian clam
DDT AND BREAKDOWN PRODUCTS
Status
The Columbia River Basin received some of the heaviest DDT
loadings in the United States prior to the 1972 ban.
Levels have decreased dramatically since the 1970s but are still
above health effects limits for people, fish, and wildlife in many
areas of the Basin.
Concentration Trend over Time
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
Note: A downward-pointing green arrow indicates a decreasing trend.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Table 5.2. Summary of status and concentration trends for the selected indicator species (cont)
Ol
b
W
|
Indicator Species
Resident fish - bass, whitefish, sucker, trout,
walleye, northern pikeminnow
Juvenile salmon
Sturgeon
Predatory birds - bald eagle and osprey
Fish-eating mammals - mink and otter
Sediment-dwelling shellfish - Asian clam
Status
PCS levels have generally declined since they were banned in
the 1970s.
Because RGBs are very stable and bioaccumulate in long- lived
species and top predators, they are still a concern.
Every state in the basin still has areas with fish consumption
advisories and levels that exceed species effects levels.
Sources are still being discovered.
Note: An upward-pointing red arrow indicates a decreasing trend.
Indicator Species
Resident fish - bass, whitefish, sucker, trout,
walleye, northern pikeminnow
Juvenile salmon
Sturgeon
Predatory birds - bald eagle and osprey
Fish-eating mammals - mink and otter
Sediment-dwelling shellfish - Asian clam
Status
In areas where data have been collected, levels of these
chemicals are showing rapid increases.
Though some studies have detected developmental and other
impacts for humans and other species, there are currently no
established effects levels for human or other species' health.
Note: An upward-pointing red arrow indicates an increasing trend.
Concentration Trend
over Time
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
Concentration Trend
over Time
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
No Trend Data
3D
m
1
m
30
O
c
30
D
D
TJ
O
00
W
D
TJ
00
D
m
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
o>
b
X
o
w
DO
m
o
c
o
m
-n
-n
O
DO
DO
DO
m
>
D
m
D
6.0
Toxics Reduction Efforts—Current and Planned
States, tribes, communities, non-profit groups, EPA, and other federal agencies
have launched a long-term recovery effort to improve the water, land, and
air quality of the Basin. These groups are working together to enhance and
accomplish critical ecosystem restoration efforts. A number of toxics reduction
efforts are under way throughout the Basin as a part of this recovery effort.
States are Improving Water Quality and Reducing
Toxics
State agencies are developing water quality improvement plans
The Federal Clean Water Act requires states to list all water bodies under
their control that do not meet water quality standards. The states are then
required to develop water quality improvement plans for those impaired waters
so they will meet water quality standards. These plans, also known as total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) (Table 6.1), are in place or are being developed
throughout the Basin for toxics.
Through implementation of these TMDLs, water quality is improved using a
combination of pollution controls on point sources; programs to reduce non-
point sources such as urban stormwater and agricultural runoff; and cleanup of
known sources of contaminants such as abandoned mines or hazardous waste
sites.
Oregon is using human health criteria to limit toxics
In October 2008, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission
recommended that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
revise the human health criteria as a part of Oregon's water quality standards.
The Commission has asked for a proposed rule with a fish consumption rate
of 175 grams per day (instead of the current rate of 17.5 grams per day) and
a broader toxics reduction implementation strategy. This recommendation
was a result of a two-year collaborative process led by EPA, ODEQ, and the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The recommended fish
consumption rate of 175 grams per day represents approximately the 90th to
95th percentile of Oregon's fish-consuming populations, as indicated by studies
of tribes, Asians, and Pacific Islanders in Oregon and Washington. [1]
ODEQ's water quality standards play an important role in maintaining and
restoring environmental quality. Human health criteria are used to limit the
amount of toxic pollutants that enter Oregon's waterways and accumulate
in the fish and shellfish consumed by Oregonians. The criteria also serve as
the framework for wastewater permits, nonpoint source reduction activities,
stormwater permits, and sediment cleanup efforts. The criteria help ensure
that people may eat fish and shellfish from local waters without incurring
unacceptable health risks. A final rule on the revised criteria is expected in
October 2009.
EPA and States are Using Permits to Control Toxics
The Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program controls the quality of water discharged into the Basin from
point sources such as wastewater treatment plants, mines, and pulp and paper
plants. Federal, state, and local NPDES permits limit the amount of pollutants
from municipal, industrial, and stormwater discharges so that the quality of
the water body receiving the discharge is not impacted or further impaired.
Facilities that have an NPDES permit must conduct routine monitoring and are
fined or required to install pollution controls if their NPDES permit conditions
for water quality are not met. However, data on the amounts of many toxics
(including DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs) entering the Columbia River from
stormwater and from municipal and
industrial dischargers are limited.
Stormwater and erosion controls
are increasingly important in
urban and developing areas to
keep contaminants from reaching
lakes, rivers, and streams. This is
done through stormwater NPDES
permitting and a combination
of best management practices
(BMPs) and public education.
Many communities and industries
Combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfall
(photo courtesy of WADOE)
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Table 6.1: Toxics TMDLs that have been approved or are under development in the Washington, Oregon, and Idaho areas of the Columbia River Basin
State River Toxics
Washington
Yakima
Spokane
Okanogan
Walla Walla
Pa louse
Lake Chelan
Mission Creek (Wenatchee)
Columbia
Similkameen
Chlorinated Pesticides (e.g., DDT) and PCBs
Metals, PCBs
DDT PCBs
Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs
Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs
DDT PCBs
DDT
Dioxins
Arsenic
igon
Columbia
Columbia Slough
Coast Fork Willamette
Cottage Grove Reservoir
Pudding
Johnson Creek
Willamette
Row River
Snake River
Dioxins
Lead, PCBs, Dioxins, DDT Dieldrin
Mercury
Mercury
DDT Dieldrin, Chlordane
DDT Dieldrin
Mercury
Mercury
ODD, DDE, DDT Dieldrin
Idaho
Salmon Falls Reservoir
Jordan Creek
East Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Coeur D'Alene)
Snake River
Columbia
Mercury
Mercury
Metals
ODD, DDE, DDT Dieldrin
Dioxins
O)
b
§
o
w
3D
m
D
c
O
m
-n
-n
O
30
I
30
30
m
>
z
D
m
D
are adopting innovative stormwater management techniques that improve the
quality of the discharged water before it reaches lakes, rivers, and streams.
These include porous pavement to reduce runoff; diversion of runoff from
storm sewers into natural systems (e.g., vegetated buffers); retention and
treatment wetlands; and nitration through vegetated swales. Such stormwater
management practices also reduce flooding, erosion, and direct runoff of
contaminants to waterways.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
o>
b
X
o
w
DO
m
o
c
o
m
-n
-n
O
DO
DO
DO
m
>
D
m
D
Federal Government and States are Working to Clean
up Hazardous Waste in the Basin
Several contaminated sites in the Basin are being cleaned up and managed
under EPA Superfund or state toxic cleanup programs. For example, since
1983, EPA has been working with the State of Idaho, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe,
and mining companies to clean up the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical
Superfund site in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. The area's many mines were
once a primary source of our nation's zinc, copper, lead, and precious metals.
A comprehensive, integrated approach, using all available regulatory tools
such as the Clean Water Act and
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act, has been employed to help protect
human health and the environment in this
heavily contaminated watershed.
Furthermore, in the Upper Columbia
River above Grand Coulee Dam,
several investigations and cleanups are
ongoing in the areas that drain into Lake
Roosevelt. In Montana, cleanup efforts
in the upper Clark Fork and Flathead
basins have reduced copper, lead, arsenic,
and zinc contamination into the Columbia
River tributaries. [2] In the Middle Columbia River, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is working to prevent contaminated groundwater on the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation from reaching the Columbia River. Work is also under
way to clean up contaminated sediment from the Portland Harbor Superfund
site, located on the lower Willamette River near its confluence with the Lower
Columbia to reduce PCBs, DDT, and many other toxic contaminants.
In addition to the federally listed Superfund sites, each state manages its
own list of contaminated site cleanup projects. States work with the federal
Cleanup of an Idaho mine near the
Salmon River (photo courtesy of EPA)
agencies and with businesses and property owners to develop site assessment
and cleanup plans and then conduct cleanup activities. Many contaminated
sites in the Basin are in various stages of planning and cleanup for a variety
of contaminants. Two examples of PCB-contaminated sites on the Columbia
River are the Bradford Island site at the Bonneville Dam and the Alcoa plant
in Vancouver, Washington. An accelerated cleanup is planned by the State
of Washington at the Alcoa site, where sediment removal is scheduled for
November 2008.
Upper Columbia River Investigation and Cleanup
EPA is studying hazardous waste contamination in the Upper Columbia
River from the U.S./Canadian border down to Grand Coulee Dam and
the surrounding upland areas. The investigation and cleanup site under
EPA Superfund authority, located in northeastern Washington, consists
of 150 miles of river and lake environment. From about 1930 to 1995,
the Teck Cominco smelter in Trail, B.C., located 10 miles north of
the U.S./Canadian border, discharged millions of tons of metals-laden
slag and other wastes directly into the Columbia River. The waste
discharged from the facility was carried downstream into the United
States and has settled in the River's low-flow areas, beaches, and stream
banks, potentially impacting the ecosystem in and around the Upper
Columbia River.
In 2004, EPA began investigating the contamination problems in the
Upper Columbia. In the first phase of the investigation, EPA collected
over 400 sediment and 1,000 fish samples, along with samples from
15 beaches. Over the next several years, additional sediment, fish, and
beach samples will be collected.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Bradford Island PCB Cleanup
In 1997 and 1998, USGS biologists found higher levels of PCBs in osprey
eggs collected near Bonneville Dam than in eggs from other reaches of
the Columbia River. [3] Also, in the late 1990s, very high levels of PCBs
were found in crayfish collected near Bradford Island, which is part of
the Bonneville Lock and Dam Complex. Based on this information, the
Oregon Department of Human Services issued an advisory cautioning
people against consuming crayfish, clams, or other bottom-dwelling
organisms between Bonneville Dam and Ruckel Creek, about a mile
upstream.
The PCB contamination came from disposal of electrical equipment on
Bradford Island and the Columbia River during the 1950s. In response, the
USAGE removed PCB-containing equipment and some sediments in 2002.
In 2007, the Corps completed the removal of PCB sediment "hot-spots"
over a one-acre area that was estimated to contain over 90 percent of the
PCB contamination on Bradford Island. The Corps continues to work
with ODEQ to evaluate and remove the remaining PCB-contaminated
sediments.
Portland Harbor Superfund Cleanup Site
The Portland Harbor Superfund site study area is focused on an
11-mile stretch of the lower Willamette River from downtown Portland,
Oregon, to the Columbia River. Sediments at the site are contaminated
with metals, pesticides (e.g., DDT), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), PCBs, and dioxin/furans from a variety of sources. EPA is
overseeing a remedial investigation and feasibility study being conducted
by a group of potentially responsible parties referred to as the Lower
Willamette Group. EPA is the lead agency for investigating and cleaning
up contaminated sediment in the Willamette. The ODEQ is the lead
agency for investigating and cleaning up the upland sites that are
potential sources of contamination to the Willamette. A draft feasibility
study, which will evaluate cleanup strategies and methods, is targeted
for late 2010. EPA will then issue a proposed cleanup plan for public
comment before making a final decision on the harbor-wide cleanup. In
addition to the harbor-wide investigation, several early actions are under
way to clean up individual sites that need more immediate attention.
O)
b
I
O
w
3D
m
D
c
O
m
-n
-n
O
3D
I
3D
3D
m
D
TJ
VISIT THE WEB
Additional information about the Upper Columbia, Bradford Island, and Portland Harbor
investigations and cleanups can be found by visiting EPA's Columbia River Basin website:
http://www.epa.qov/reqion10/columbia.
m
D
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
o>
b
X
o
w
DO
m
o
c
o
m
-n
-n
O
DO
DO
DO
m
>
D
m
D
State and Local Partnerships are Working to Improve
Farming Practices
Partnerships and volunteer efforts are reducing runoff from farms
The Columbia River Basin supports some of the most important agricultural
regions in the United States. Clean water for food production is critical, but
agricultural practices can degrade water quality by contributing eroded soil,
nutrients, and pesticides to nearby waters. Agricultural BMPs are used to
improve water quality, often with the added benefits of improving water and
soil conservation and soil fertility.
BMPs are usually developed and implemented by partnerships between
farmers, local conservation districts and university extension services, state
and federal agriculture and water quality agencies, tribal governments, and
local watershed groups. They have become a critical component of TMDLs in
agricultural watersheds such as the Yakima River.
The agricultural community can be leaders in reducing toxics in the Columbia
River Basin. Voluntary agricultural activities provide a great opportunity to
reduce toxics in the Basin
by reducing legacy toxics
such as DDT and current-
use pesticides, especially
organophosphates. Toxic
contaminants reach the
Columbia River Basin
from sediment transport
and deposition and have
contributed to the long-
time degradation of water
quality and fish and wildlife
habitat. Sediments may
transport trace metals (such
as arsenic and copper) and
organic compounds (such
Yakima Valley irrigation ditch before implementation of BMPs (left) and Yakima Valley irrigation ditch with BMPs to control
erosion and reduce runoff (right) (photos courtesy of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Environmental
Management Program)
as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], PCBs, and pesticides such as
DDT, chlordane, and atrazine). Most of these contaminants cling to particles
suspended in the water and settle to the bottom; therefore, their concentrations
in sediments are typically much higher than in water.
Washington is working to control soil erosion and reduce pesticide
runoff in the Yakima River Basin
The Yakima River Basin serves as a successful example of sediment cleanup
and pesticide reduction efforts. [4] DDT was used extensively in the Yakima
Valley from the 1940s until it was banned in 1972, and it persists in Yakima
Basin soils. Erosion of these soils allows pesticides to reach the aquatic
environment, where they accumulate in fish and in the people and wildlife
that eat fish. Recognizing this, the WADOE, Yakima Valley growers, water
purveyors, local conservation districts, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation worked together to implement BMPs to reduce DDT and
other pesticides by modifying irrigation practices to reduce the amount of soil
carried to the Yakima River by irrigation returns.
DDT clings to organic
particles in soil; therefore,
reducing soil erosion
from agricultural fields
and the associated
sediments should reduce
runoff polluted with
pesticides like DDT.
After the BMPs were
initiated, suspended
sediment loading to the
Lower Yakima River
during the irrigation
season was reduced
between 67 and
80 percent. Total DDT
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
concentrations in fish were reduced by 30 to 85 percent in the same area after
implementation of the BMPs. The accompanying photos show soil eroded by
surface irrigation into a return drain before BMPs were implemented; later,
with BMPs, the soil is retained by a grass filter strip between crop and drain.
Oregon is working with farmers to reduce pesticide runoff
Another example of toxics reduction from agriculture in the Columbia River
Basin is Oregon's Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships. These partnerships are
voluntary collaborations to reduce pesticide use and improve water quality.
Such collaborations typically include local watershed councils, ODEQ,
agricultural growers, Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service, and
tribes. Pilot projects in the Columbia Gorge, Hood River, and Fifteen-Mile
Creek near The Dalles, Oregon, showed substantial improvements in water
quality due to changes in pesticide management and application practices.
In addition, ODEQ has launched Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships in six
watersheds in the Basin: the Walla Walla, Clackamas, Pudding, Yamhill,
Willamette, and Hood River Basins.
For example, the Walla Walla partnership has reduced pesticide concentrations
in Oregon's Walla Walla River Basin. 15] In 2006, high levels of five toxic
pesticides were found in tributaries of the Little Walla Walla River. In response,
the ODEQ, OSU Extension Service, fruit growers (Blue Mountain Horticultural
Society), and Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council worked together to monitor
and control current-use pesticides that reach surface water by spray drift and
runoff from fruit orchards. To accomplish this, ODEQ and its partners installed
vegetated buffers adjacent to surface waters, switched to using less toxic
pesticides and mineral oil, provided individualized applicator training, and
calibrated sprayers to avoid overspray.
The monitoring results in 2007-2008, after implementation of the practices
described above, showed dramatic declines in several pesticides, including
large reductions of one of the most toxic pesticides, chlorpyrifos (Figure 6.1).
In addition, ODEQ has worked with partners in the Walla Walla Basin to
conduct two agricultural pesticide collection events to remove unwanted waste
2006-2008 Walla Walla Basin Monitoring
Median of Chlorpyrifos Detections
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
_ 0.80
1 0'70
| 0.60
1 0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
D Little WW River, West Branch/Crockett
• West Prong Little WW River, S. of Stateline Rd.
2006 2007
Acute WQ Criterion = 0.083 ppb
Chronic WQ Criterion = 0.041 ppb
2008 (preliminary)
Figure 6.1: Concentrations of chlorpyrifos dropped after measures were implemented to keep
pesticides from reaching nearby surface waters in Oregon.
pesticides from the watershed. Over 17,000 pounds of pesticide waste were
collected and properly disposed of from these events.
State and Local Governments are Removing Toxics from
Communities
The State of Washington passed one of the first state bans on PBDEs in the
summer of 2007. This ban is part of the state's overall initiative to reduce the
threat from persistent and bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) by keeping toxics out
of products and industrial processes. The ban is being phased in over a two-year
period, with an emphasis on finding a safer and feasible alternative. Oregon
is also working to reduce and control PBTs, particularly for large municipal
wastewater dischargers. All of the Basin states have mercury reduction
O)
b
I
O
w
3D
m
D
c
O
m
-n
-n
O
3D
I
3D
3D
m
D
TJ
m
D
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
O)
b
X
O
(/)
30
m
D
c
O
m
-n
~n
O
30
30
30
m
>
z
D
m
D
programs to promote recycling of thermometers and fluorescent lamps
containing mercury, and each state works with dentists, hospitals, and vehicle
recyclers to capture and recycle mercury. For example, separating mercury
from wastewater in dental offices prevents mercury from reaching wastewater
treatment plants and the Columbia River. Oregon and Washington also sponsor
collection of mercury recovered by small-scale mineral miners from streams
and rivers.
State, county, and local toxics reduction programs help businesses and private
citizens reduce the use of toxic chemicals and ensure the proper disposal
of hazardous wastes such as pesticides, solvents, batteries, electronics,
PBDE-containing materials, and pharmaceuticals. For example, Idaho's
pesticide disposal program prevents thousands of pounds of unusable
pesticides from reaching the environment each year. Under this program,
the Idaho State Department of Agriculture assists growers, homeowners,
dealers, and applicators with the disposal of pesticides that have become
unusable because of expiration, cancellation, deterioration, or crop changes.
Individuals can dispose of up to 1,000 pounds of pesticide at no charge.
Permanent collection points are established throughout the state; materials
are collected annually and taken to a licensed facility for incineration. From
2003 to 2007, 328,000 pounds of unusable pesticides have been collected,
and over 870,000 pounds have been collected since the program's inception in
1993 (Figure 6.2). [6] The program also collects and recycles empty pesticide
containers. Washington and Oregon are also sponsoring pesticide take-back
programs, which have recovered thousands of pounds of banned pesticides
such as DDT.
Another Idaho initiative is the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality's
(IDEQ's) school laboratory and chemical cleanup project. This project assists
schools in understanding and implementing best practices for managing
and disposing of their large stockpiles of hazardous chemicals and wastes,
including mercury.
Over 870,000 Pounds of Pesticides Collected
in Idaho Since 1993
v>
T>
100000
GOOOO
60000
40000 \—
20000
0
2003 2004
2005
Year
2006
2007
Figure 6.2: Amount of pesticides collected under Idaho's pesticide disposal
program (2003-2007).
At the county level, Clark County, on the Lower Columbia River in
Washington, recently implemented an unwanted medications take-back
program that allows residents to drop off unwanted pharmaceuticals at
participating pharmacies. The drugs are then incinerated at a licensed facility.
Washington has implemented a pilot pharmaceutical take-back program in
King County (through 2008) and plans to expand it to a statewide program.
In Oregon, a proposal may be presented to the 2009 legislative session for a
pharmaceutical take-back program. These partnerships between state and local
governments, pharmacies, medical facilities, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration reduce pharmaceutical pollution in wastewater and unlined
solid waste landfills which can contaminate groundwater and surface
waterways.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Oregon and Nevada are Reducing Industrial
Mercury Emissions
A number of regulatory agencies in the Basin have recently introduced controls
on industrial mercury discharges to the air. EPA expanded its Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements in 1999 to include mercury reporting
for a variety of industries. The TRI data showed that some of the highest
discharges of mercury in the country were in or bordering the Basin and that
the single highest emitter of mercury was a cement plant in eastern Oregon. To
reduce these emissions, ODEQ worked with the cement plant operators, who,
through a 2008 mutual agreement and order, agreed to ".. .endeavor to meet
a goal of 85% reduction in mercury emissions on a rolling 12-month average
basis...". The agreement also stipulates that if the goal is not met within a
specified timeframe, plant operators will develop an action plan and implement
corrective actions in a further effort to achieve the 85 percent reduction. ODEQ
will oversee these efforts to determine whether the cement plant"... exhaust [s]
all reasonable alternatives..." to meet the goal. m
Approximately a dozen mines in the Battle Mountain Mining District in
northern Nevada produce 11 percent of the world's gold and 74 percent of the
nation's gold. [sl TRI reporting showed that these gold mining operations were
releasing a total of over 12,000 pounds of mercury per year. Between 2002 and
2005, EPA and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection worked
with four mining companies to set up a program of voluntary reductions
for mercury emissions that resulted in an 82 percent decrease of mercury
discharges to air at these mines. In March 2008, the State of Nevada enacted
the nation's first regulations limiting mercury air emissions from precious metal
mining operations. These regulations set limits on mercury emissions from all
the mines in the Battle Mountain District.
The only coal-fired power plant in the Columbia River Basin is located near the
Columbia River at Boardman. This plant discharges an average of 168 pounds
of mercury to the atmosphere per year. [9] In December 2006, Oregon adopted
regulations applicable to coal-fired power plants that require the Boardman
plant to control and reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2012 and cap
state-wide mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2018. There
are also three coal-fired power plants near the boundary of the Basin (one in
Washington and two in Nevada) that could contribute some mercury load to the
watershed, depending upon their emissions and prevailing wind patterns.
Idaho Agencies and Kootenai Tribe are Monitoring
Toxics in Fish, Water, and Air
For several years, the State of Idaho has monitored rivers, lakes, and reservoirs
for a number of toxics. In 2006, IDEQ sampled 15 large rivers for mercury in
fish. In 2007, IDEQ sampled 50 lakes and reservoirs for arsenic, mercury, and
selenium in fish tissue. In 2008, an additional 34 large rivers were sampled for
arsenic, mercury, and selenium in both fish and water; the water samples were
also tested for methylmercury.
IDEQ has also conducted or supported other local efforts, most notably in
support of the Salmon Falls Creek mercury TMDL, submitted to EPA in
December 2007 and approved in February 2008. The state's air quality program
has also been conducting some mercury deposition monitoring.
Other noteworthy studies include the following:
• The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho has conducted studies of numerous
contaminants in sturgeon, fish, water, sediment, and lower food web
organisms from the Kootenai River between 1999 and 2007. The tribe has
also studied biomarkers in sturgeon for the effects of contaminants.
• The Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted studies of contaminants
and biomarkers in Kootenai River adult and juvenile sturgeon in 1997 and
1998.
• Idaho Power Company has conducted several studies of contaminants in the
Snake River area along the Oregon-Idaho state line.
O)
b
§
o
w
3D
m
D
c
O
m
-n
-n
O
30
I
30
30
m
>
z
D
m
D
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS JANUARY 2009
O)
b
3
X
O
(/)
m PCBs and Hydroelectric Facilities
2 Historically, many pieces of electrical equipment used to generate power
Q at dams in the Columbia River Basin used cooling and insulating oil that
^ contained PCBs. In recent years, efforts have been made to reduce the presence
O of, and risk from, PCBs. These efforts include reducing or removing PCBs
from electrical equipment; conducting operator self-assessments and EPA
-n inspections; confirming that turbine oil does not contain PCBs; and reducing
ID the potential for PCB spills. EPA will continue to work with the operators of
•jj hydroelectric facilities to better understand the remaining risk of PCBs at dams.
30
JJ
m
>
z
D
m
D
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
7.0
Conclusions
The Columbia River Basin is a unique and vibrant ecosystem that is at risk
from toxic contaminants. Many challenges lie ahead to restore this ecosystem.
This State of the River Report for Toxics is EPA Region 10's first attempt to
understand and describe the current status and trends of toxics in this region
of the United States. This report is intended to serve as a starting point for
increasing public understanding about the impacts of toxics in the Basin and for
finding ways to work in partnership with others to improve and expand current
toxics reduction efforts. Specifically, its primary purposes are to inform citizens
and decision-makers about the toxics problem and potential solutions; serve as
a catalyst for increased citizen involvement and increased action; and inspire
additional, more-efficient use of resources for increased toxics reduction and
assessment actions.
While several monitoring studies are under way in the Basin to improve our
understanding of the toxics problem, we must develop a more comprehensive
and collaborative monitoring and research program. In addition, we must
expand efforts to identify the sources of toxics in the Basin, characterize the
types of contaminants, and quantify the contaminant load from these sources.
We must also identify additional effective actions to reduce toxics and protect
the health of the Columbia River Basin ecosystem, and we must continue to
implement those actions.
This report focused on four contaminants: mercury, DDT and its breakdown
products, PCBs, and PBDEs. However, we recognize that other toxics,
including additional metals, dioxins, radionuclides, and pesticides as well as
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products, are also potential contaminants of
concern. We know that these other contaminants need to be addressed in the
future.
Meanwhile, many groups are conducting pollution prevention and cleanup
efforts to reduce toxics overall and to reduce toxics in water, sediment, plants,
and animals in the Columbia River Basin. Despite limited resources, these
groups are making significant strides in reducing toxics in certain areas, but
additional efforts need to be expanded throughout the Basin. The following
Toxics Reduction Initiatives represent a first attempt at describing the next
steps in the effort to reduce toxics. We look forward to a future public dialogue
throughout the Basin as we refine and implement these initiatives.
O
o
z
o
I-
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
po
b
X
o
(/)
30
m
D
c
o
I
m
8.0
Toxics Reduction Initiatives
The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group has developed the
following set of six Toxics Reduction Initiatives, which provide a broad
overview of major actions needed to further reduce toxics in the Basin. A more
in-depth and detailed work plan will be developed over the next year with
stakeholder and public input.
Initiative #1: Expand toxics reduction activities
Federal, state, and local agencies have multiple regulatory mechanisms
available to reduce toxics. Such mechanisms include TMDLs, NPDES permits,
water quality standards, contaminated site cleanup, and programs to control
pesticide usage. These programs need to be expanded. For example, additional
toxics TMDLs and implementation plans are needed, and additional work is
needed to identify other contaminated sites for cleanup.
It is also important to promote voluntary/nonregulatory initiatives. States
and tribes have worked to reduce toxics using a variety of voluntary and
nonregulatory activities. They have focused much of their work on the
tributaries to the Columbia River. Excellent examples of voluntary programs
are Oregon's Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships and the Pesticide Take Back
Program. Support of local watershed groups in their efforts to complete toxics
reduction projects should be continued. In addition, more partnerships should
be developed with nongovernmental programs such as Salmon Safe and
organizations such as Columbia Riverkeeper, other local nonprofit groups, and
area industries.
Initiative #2: Identify, inventory, and characterize the sources of toxics in the
Columbia River Basin
There have been past efforts to identify and characterize sources of toxics
in the Columbia River and its tributaries,'11 some of which are ongoing (e.g.,
Upper Columbia River, Hanford, and Portland Harbor investigations; Working
Group efforts; and TMDL development in the Basin). However, additional
information is needed to better identify, inventory, and characterize the sources
of these toxics. This information will be used to prioritize reduction efforts and
develop long-term monitoring and research plans.
To fill in these critical information gaps, the Working Group has started to
identify important "next steps." These steps include, but are not limited to,
(1) identifying, inventorying, and mapping all potential sources of toxics, both
within and outside the Basin; (2) determining the contaminants of concern
from these sources; (3) collecting information on the concentrations of the
contaminants of concern, where available; (4) determining the quantities of
contaminants reaching the Columbia River and its tributaries, where possible;
(5) evaluating the fate and transport of contaminants and their breakdown
products from air and soil into the Columbia River and its tributaries;
(6) determining the role of sediments as a source of contamination; and
(7) prioritizing those sources where the greatest reduction efforts are needed
and can be implemented.
Initiative #3: Develop a regional, multi-agency long-term monitoring
program
There is no comprehensive, integrated monitoring plan for the Columbia River
and its tributaries. This initiative will allow the Working Group to develop
such a plan; ultimately, this plan would provide information on the locations
and concentrations of toxics in the Basin, fill in data gaps in our scientific
knowledge, evaluate the impact of toxics on the ecosystem, and characterize
the information on the status and trends of toxics in the Basin. With this
information, the Working Group will be able to target limited resources and
tailor the monitoring program to obtain data from areas that have not been
previously monitored (such as the mid-Columbia River and the Snake River).
Critical steps in the development of this monitoring plan include (1) completing
a data gaps analysis of the Basin's contaminant data collected from 1994 to
the present; (2) determining the geographic extent of the areas to be sampled
and identifying which contaminants would be monitored; (3) determining the
types of media to be sampled (e.g., water, sediments, and/or fish tissue); and
(4) determining the frequency, specific locations, and techniques for sampling.
Because of limited resources, any monitoring program needs to be coordinated
among the different federal, state, tribal, local, and nongovernmental entities to
leverage resources and avoid duplication.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
Initiative #4: Develop a regional, multi-agency research program
While research is being conducted by different agencies on toxics in the Basin,
no coordinated effort has been made to identify the highest priorities for
research. A collaborative plan will help the Working Group further understand
the Basin's contaminant problems and their relation to the food web, which will
allow the Working Group to efficiently leverage resources among agencies.
It will also enable us to develop an integrated approach that focuses on issues
specific to the Columbia River Basin (for example, PBDE concentrations in
osprey eggs) that can be addressed by scientists within the region (NOAA
Fisheries, EPA Corvallis Laboratory, USGS Science Center, and others).
Initiative #5: Develop a data management system that will allow us to share
information on toxics in the Basin
The ability to access information is critical to effectively evaluating toxics
information. It is also necessary when prioritizing which reduction activities
will provide the most benefits. Currently, no single database contains all of the
data from monitoring efforts within the Basin. In addition, some of the data are
not publicly accessible or are often available only in hard copy records. Some
records are of unknown quality, and most are in differing formats.
While a single database would be useful, its development would be very
expensive and would require dedicated resources to operate and maintain.
As an alternative to a single database, the Working Group will explore the
possibility of working with existing efforts such as the Northwest Data
Exchange Network and the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership.
Initiative #6: Increase public education about the toxics problems and
resource needs
Public support and concern related to toxics and their impact on human health
and the environment are growing. Furthermore, there is a base of support in
the Basin among citizens, watershed groups, and other stakeholders associated
with local, state, tribal, and federal governments. Many of these groups are
interested in working together to better understand and reduce toxics in the
Columbia River Basin, with the goal of moving toward a Basin ecosystem that
is healthier for all.
It will be important to educate the public further about the Columbia River
Basin toxics problem, current efforts, and the need for increased action and
resources to reduce toxics. The Working Group intends to work closely
with the partners of the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group
and with Basin stakeholders to coordinate outreach to the public (including
schools, business/industry groups, nonprofit organizations, farm associations,
and watershed councils). Outreach efforts will include (1) holding public
workshops and other public events throughout the Basin; (2) using multi-media
tools, including websites, postcards, and posters, to educate and inform Basin
residents about toxics; and (3) encouraging public participation in Columbia
River toxics reduction activities.
00
b
O
X
O
w
30
m
D
O
<
m
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
30
D
To a great extent, success will depend on a commitment to join forces to
make the best use of available resources. This approach will require strong
communication and collaboration among Basin agencies, organizations, and
the public. We recognize that the citizens of the Northwest place a high value
on a healthy Columbia River Basin ecosystem. Therefore, we plan to reach out
to those who live, work, and play in the Basin; share information on risks to
the Basin posed by toxics; and solicit help in restoring the Basin's magnificent
ecosystem.
In 2009, the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group will develop a
draft work plan that will build on the successful and numerous toxics reduction
efforts already accomplished or under way and will also identify new efforts to
reduce toxics in the Basin. We will do this by hosting a number of watershed-
based workshops in the Basin. The outcome of these workshops should be
a toxics reduction work plan for the Columbia River Basin that will involve
citizens; local watershed councils; Basin communities; other entities; and
tribal, federal, and state governments in a collaborative partnership.
Columbia River Toxics Reduction Work Plan and Watershed Workshops
Late Winter - Early Spring 2009: The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group develops draft toxics reduction work plan.
Late Spring - Summer 2009: Watershed workshops are held for Basin residents, local watershed councils and communities, tribal governments, and the
general public to learn about, and contribute to, the draft work plan. Actions are initiated to evaluate the extent of toxic contamination in the Basin and reduce
impacts.
Fall - Winter 2009: The Working Group finalizes a collaborative, watershed-based work plan that focuses efforts on implementation.
\/|G|T TLJC
VIOM mc
More detailed information, including expanded data and reports, can be found by visiting EPA's
Columbia River website: http://www.epa.gov/region10/columbia.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
10.0
References
Section 2.0: Introduction
1. NPCC (2007), "Human Population Impacts on Columbia River Basin Fish
and Wildlife," ISAB 2007-3, June.
2 Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission (1979), Water—Today and
Tomorrow, Vancouver, Washington.
3. NPCC (2000), Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Council
Document 2000-19.
4. BPA, USAGE, USER (2001), The Columbia River System: Inside Story,
Federal Columbia River Power System, DOE/BP-3372, second edition,
April.
5. EPA (2006), 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Charting Our Course, EPA
190-R-06-001.
6. EPA (1992), National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, EPA 823-R-92-
008a.
7. CRITFC (1994), A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce,
Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin, Technical
report 94-3, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland,
Oregon.
8. EPA (2002), Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey, 1996-1998,
EPA910-R-02-006.
Section 3.0: Toxic Contaminants
1. Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group (2007), Contaminants
Subgroup, "Contaminants of Concern."
2. Washington Toxics Coalition (2006), Pollution in People: A Study of Toxic
Chemicals in Washingtonians, A Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition Report,
May.
3. Oregon Environmental Council and the Oregon Collaborative for Health
and the Environment (2007), Pollution in People: A Study of Toxic
Chemical in Oregonians, November.
4. Nilsen, E.B., R.R. Rosenbauer, E.T. Furlong, M.R. Burkhardt, S.L.
Werner, L. Greaser, and M. Noriega (2007), "Pharmaceuticals, personal
care products and anthropogenic waste indicators detected in streambed
sediments of the Lower Columbia River and selected tributaries," in 6th
International Conference on Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting
Chemicals in Water, National Ground Water Association, Costa Mesa, CA;
Paper 4483, p 15.
5. Buelow, L. (2008), EPA, personal communication, June 2008 e-mail.
6. EPA (1987), National Dioxin Study, Report to Congress, EPA Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-025, Washington,
D.C., August.
7. EPA (1992), National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, EPA 823-R-92-
008a.
8. Seiders, K. (2007), Washington State Toxics Monitoring Program:
Contaminants in Fish Tissue from Freshwater Environments 2004 - 2005,
ECY publication #02-03-65 at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703024.
html, Washington Department of Ecology.
9. EVS Consultants for EPA (1998), Assessment ofDioxins Furans and
PCBs in Fish Tissue from Lake Roosevelt Data from Washington Ecology
EIM, http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/eimreporting/Search.asp.
10. Henny, C., R.A. Grove, and J.L. Kaiser (2008), "Osprey distribution,
abundance, reproductive success and contaminant burdens along
the Lower Columbia River, 1997/1998 versus 2004", in Archives of
Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 54:525-534.
Section 4.0: Indicators
1. Loge, F.J., M.R. Arkoosh, T.R. Ginn, L.L. Johnson, and T.K. Collier
(2005), "Impact of environmental stressors on dynamics of disease
transmission," in Environmental Science and Technology, 39:7329-7336.
2. Mallatt, J., M.G. Barren, and C. McDonough (1986), "Acute toxicity of
methyl mercury to the larval lamprey, Petromyzon marinus," in Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 37:281-288.
3. Haas, J.E. and G. Ichikawa (2007), "Mercury bioaccumulation in Pacific
Lamprey Ammocoetes: the roles life history plays," U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.
(poster).
O
b
30
m
-n
m
30
m
O
m
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
p
b
30
m
~n
m
30
m
z
o
m
Section 5.0: Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs
Mercury
1. Lorraine Edmond, EPA Region 10, compilation of data from GIS analysis
of modeling results documented in ICF 2008, cited below.
2. Dwight Atkinson, EPA Office of Water, Washington, D. C., personal
communication based on GIS analysis of modeling results documented in
ICF 2008, cited below.
3. ICF International (2008), Model-Based Analysis and Tracking of Airborne
Mercury Emissions to Assist in Watershed Planning, prepared for EPA
Office of Water, Washington, D.C., final report August 5, 2008, 350 p.
4. Dwight Atkinson (2008), "Mercury Deposition Modeling for States &
Tribes in Regions 8, 9, and 10," Power Point presentation, August 2008.
5. Columbia Riverkeeper (2008), "Columbia River Toxic Discharges
Assessment and Mixing Zone Mapping," draft report, based on data
reported to Washington Department of Ecology and Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
6. Environment Canada National Pollutant Release Inventory database, data
for Teck Cominco smelter at Trail, British Columbia, available online at
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri home e.cfm.
7. ODEQ (2004), Willamette Basin Mercury Study. Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, Laboratory Division, Portland, Oregon.
8. Oregon Department of Human Services, 1997, Elevated Levels of Mercury
in Sport-Caught Bass and Squawfish from the Willamette River, issued
February 13, 1996.
9. Henny, C., R.A. Grove, and J.L. Kaiser (2008), "Osprey distribution,
abundance, reproductive success and contaminant burdens along
the Lower Columbia River, 1997/1998 versus 2004" in Archives of
Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 54:525-534.
10. Henny, C.J., J.L Kaiser, and R.A. Grove (2008), "PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs,
OC pesticides and mercury in fish and osprey eggs from Willamette
River, Oregon (1993, 2001 and 2006) with calculated biomagnifications
factors." in Ecotoxicology, http://www.springerlink.com/content/
k63kx77k8117plx3/fulltext.html.
11. Kruse, G.O., and D.L. Scarnecchia (2002), "Assessment of
bioaccumulated metal and organochlorine compounds in relation to
physiological biomarkers in Kootenai River white sturgeon," in Journal of
Applied Ichthyology, 18:430-438.
12. Kruse, G.O., and D.L. Scarnecchia (2002), "Contaminant uptake and
survival of white sturgeon embryos," presented at the American Fisheries
Society Symposium, 28:151-160.
13. CRITFC (1994), A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce,
Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin, technical
report 94-3, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland,
Oregon.
14. Lepla, K.B., and J.A. Chandler (1994), revised edition March 1998, A
Survey of White Sturgeon in the Bliss Reach of the Middle Snake River,
Idaho, report prepared for Idaho Power Company, Technical Report FERC
No. 1975.
15. Kruse, G.O., and M.H. Webb (2006), Upper Columbia River White
Sturgeon Contaminant and Deformity Evaluation and Summary, report
prepared for the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon Recovery Team
Contaminants Sub-Committee to the Upper Columbia River White
Sturgeon Recovery Team, http://uppercolumbiasturgeon.org/Research/
Research.html.
16. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, J. Yates, and
J.M. Spitsbergen (2001), "Plasma androgen correlation, EROD induction,
reduced condition factor, and the occurrence of organochlorine pollutants
in reproductively immature white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)
from the Columbia River, U.S. A," in Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 41:182-191.
17. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, and J. Yates
(2001), "Gonad organochlorine concentrations and plasma steroid levels
in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) from the Columbia River,
U.S.A.," in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,
67:239-245.
18. Feist, G.W., M.A.H. Webb, D.T Gunderson, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck,
A.G. Maule, and M.S. Fitzpatrick (2005), "Evidence of detrimental effects
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
of environmental contaminants on growth and reproductive physiology
of white sturgeon in impounded areas of the Columbia River," in
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 12.
19. Webb, M.A.H., G.W. Feist, M.S. Fitzpatrick, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck,
M. Plumlee, C. Wong, and D.T. Gunderson (2005), "Mercury
concentrations in gonad, liver and muscle tissue of white sturgeon
(Acipenser transmontanus) in the Columbia River," in Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 50:443-451.
20. Hill, S. (1975), "Study of mercury and heavy metals pollution in the
Jordan Creek drainage," grant number Gy/10816, Student-Originated
Studies, National Science Foundation, College of Mines, University of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
21. Rinella, F.A., W.H. Mullins, and C.A. Schuler (1994), Reconnaissance
Investigation of Water Quality, Bottom Sediment, and Biota Associated
with Irrigation Drainage in the Owyhee and Vale Projects, Oregon and
Idaho, 1990-91, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 93 4156.
22. EPA (2003), "National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue -
1999 to 2003," http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/study/.
23. Seiders, K., C. Deligeannis, and P. Sandvik (2007), Washington
Department of Ecology, Washington State Toxics Monitoring Program:
Contaminants in Fish Tissue from Freshwater Environments 2004 and
2005, Publication No. 07-03-024: June.
24. Stone, H. (2006), "Brownlee Reservoir mercury TMDL fish tissue study:
results and field summary," Idaho Department of Environmental Quality,
June.
25. Clark, G.M., and T.R. Maret (1998), Organochlorine Compounds and
Trace Elements in Fish Tissue and Bed Sediments in the Lower Snake
River Basin, Idaho and Oregon, USGS Water-Resources Investigations
Report 98-4103.
26. Data shared by T.R. Maret, USGS trmaret@usgs.gov. 2004-2007 data
collection.
27. EPA (2002), Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey, 1996-1998.
EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA 910/R-02-006, July.
28. Large Rivers Idaho Frame EMAP sampling (2006), (unpublished).
29. Idaho Fish Consumption Advisory Program Data, J. Vannoy, Idaho
Department of Health, VannoyJ@dhw.idaho.gov.
DDT
1. Fuhrer, G.J., J. Morace, H.M. Johnson, J. Rinella, J.C. Ebbert, S.S.
Embrey, I.R. Waite, K.D. Carpenter, D.R. Wise, and C.A. Hughes (2004),
"Water Quality in the Yakima River Basin, Washington 1999-2000,"
USGS Circular 1237.
2. USGS Circular 1090, USGS WRIR 98-4113.
3. EPA (1992), National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, EPA 823-R-92-
008a.
4. Johnson, A., B. Era-Miller, and R. Coots (2007), Chlorinated Pesticides,
PCBs, and Dioxins in Yakima River Fish in 2006: Data Summary and
Comparison to Human Health Criteria, Washington Department of
Ecology, Publication No. 07-03-036, July.
5. EPA (2002), Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey, 1996-1998,
EPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington, EPA 910/R-02-006, July.
6. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, J. Yates, and
J.M. Spitsbergen (2001), "Plasma androgen correlation, EROD induction,
reduced condition factor, and the occurrence of organochlorine pollutants
in reproductively immature white sturgeon (Acipenser Transmontanus)
from the Columbia River, U.S.A.," in Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 41, 182-191.
7. Feist, G.W., M.A.H. Webb, D.T. Gunderson, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck,
A.G. Maule, and M.S. Fitzpatrick (2005), "Evidence of detrimental effects
of environmental contaminants on growth and reproductive physiology
of white sturgeon in impounded areas of the Columbia River," in
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 12.
8. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, J. Yates,
J.M. Spitsbergen, and J. Heidel (2001), "Altered reproductive physiology,
EROD induction, reduced condition factor, and the occurrence of
organochlorine pollutants in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)
from the Columbia River," in Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, 41 (2): 182-191.
O
b
30
m
-n
m
30
m
O
m
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
p
b
30
m
~n
m
30
m
z
o
m
9. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, and J. Yates
(2001), "Gonad organochlorine concentrations and plasma sex steroid
levels in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) from the Columbia
River, USA.," in Bull. Environ. Contain. ToxicoL, 67:239-245.
10. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, J. Yates,
J.M. Spitsbergen, and J.R. Heidel (2001), "Plasma androgen correlation,
EROD induction, reduced condition factor, and the occurrence of
organochlorine pollutants in reproductively immature white sturgeon
(Acipenser transmontanus) from the Columbia River, USA.," in Archives
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 41 (2): 182-91.
11. Lepla, K.B., and J.A. Chandler (1994), revised edition March 1998, A
Survey of White Sturgeon in the Bliss Reach of the Middle Snake River,
Idaho, report prepared for Idaho Power Company, Technical Report FERC
No. 1975.
12. Kruse, G.O., and M.H. Webb (2006), Upper Columbia River White
Sturgeon Contaminant and Deformity Evaluation and Summary, report
prepared for the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon Recovery Team
Contaminants Sub-Committee to the Upper Columbia River White
Sturgeon Recovery Team, http://uppercolumbiasturgeon.org/Research/
Research.html.
13. Kruse, G.O., and D.L. Scarnecchia (2002), "Assessment of
bioaccumulated metal and organochlorine compounds in relation to
physiological biomarkers in Kootenai River white sturgeon," in Journal of
Applied Ichthyology, 18:430-438.
14. Anthony, R.G., M.G. Garrett, and C.A. Schuler (1993), "Environmental
contaminants in bald eagles in the Columbia River estuary," in Journal of
Wildlife Management, 57(1): 10-19.
15. Buck, J.A., R.G.Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs (1999), Changes in Productivity
and Environmental Contaminants in Bald Eagles Nesting Along the Lower
Columbia River, USFWS and Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit,
Study ID 13420-1130-1F16.
16. Buck, J.A., R.G. Anthony, C.A. Schuler, F.B. Isaacs, and D.E. Tillitt
(2005), "Changes in productivity and contaminants in bald eagles nesting
along the Lower Columbia River, USA.," in Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 1779-1792.
17. Gabrielson, I.N., and S.G. Jewett (1940), Birds of Oregon, Oregon State
College Press, Corvallis.
18. Henny, C.J., J.A. Collins, and WJ. Deibert (1978), "Osprey distribution,
abundance, and status in western North America: II. the Oregon
population," TheMurrelet, 59:14-25.
19. Henny, C.J., J.L. Kaiser, and R.A. Grove (2005), "Ospreys in Oregon and
the Pacific Northwest," USGS Fact Sheet 153-02 (revised), 4 pp., http://
fresc.usgs.gov/products/fs/fs-153-02.pdf.
20. Henny, C.J., R.A. Grove, and J.L. Kaiser (2008), "Osprey distribution,
abundance, reproductive success and contaminant burdens along
the Lower Columbia River, 1997/1998 versus 2004," in Archives of
Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 54:525-534.
21. Isaacs, F. (2002), "25-Year Study Shows Oregon Bald Eagles Doing
Well," unpublished data, OSU, http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/
newsarch/2002/Dec02/eagles.htm.
PCBs
1. Johnson, A., D. Serdar, and D. Davis (1994), "Results of 1993 Screening
Survey on PCBs and Metals in the Spokane River, April 1994," in
Washington Department of Ecology Publication No. 94-e24 : July 11,
1994 memo to Carl Nuechterlein from Dale Davis and Dave Serdar with
corrections.
2. Serdar, D., and A. Johnson (2006), "PCBs, PBDEs and selected metals in
Spokane River fish, 2005," Ecology Publication 06-03-025.
3. Johnson, A. (1996), "Results on PCBs in Upper Spokane River Fish,
Washington Department of Ecology memo to Carl Neuchterlein and
Dave Knight," in Washington DOE Publication 97-304, July 8, 1997.
4. Johnson, A., (2000), "Results from Analyzing PCBs in 1999 Spokane
River Fish and Crayfish Samples, September," in Washington Department
of Ecology Publication No. 00-03-040.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
5. Seiders, K., C. Deligeannis, and K. Kinney (2006), "Washington State
Toxics Monitoring Program: Toxic Contaminants in Fish Tissue and
Surface Water from Freshwater Environments, 2003," in Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-03-019.
6. Feist, G.W., M.A.H. Webb, D.T. Gunderson, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck,
A.G. Maule, and M.S. Fitzpatrick (2005), "Evidence of detrimental effects
of environmental contaminants on growth and reproductive physiology
of white sturgeon in impounded areas of the Columbia River," in
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113 No. 12.
7. LCREP (Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership) (2007), Lower
Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring: Water Quality and
Salmon Sampling Report, prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership, Portland, Oregon.
8. Johnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, C.A. Sloan, B.F. Anulacion, A.N. Kagley,
M.R. Arkoosh, R.A. Lundrigan, K. Larson, M. Siipola, and T.K. Collier
(2007), "Persistent organic pollutants in outmigrant juvenile chinook
salmon from the Lower Columbia Estuary, USA," in Science of the Total
Environment, 374:342-366.
9. Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein (2002), "Use of tissue and
sediment-based threshold concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) to protect juvenile salmonids listed under the US Endangered
Species Act," in Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 493-516
(2002).
10. Johnson, A., and D. Norton (2005), Concentrations of 303(d) Listed
Pesticides, PCBs and PAHs, Measured with Passive Samplers Deployed
in the Lower Columbia River, Washington Department of Ecology,
Publication No. 05-03-006.
11. Henny, C.J., R.A. Grove, and O.P. Hedstrom (1996), Field evaluation of
mink and river otter on the Lower Columbia River and the influence of
environmental contaminants, final report submitted to the Lower Columbia
River Bi-State Water Quality Program, http://www.lcrep.org/pdfs/44.%20
01538.pdf.
12. Henny, C.J., LJ. Blus, S.V. Gregory, and CJ. Stafford (1981), "PCBs and
organochlorine pesticides in wild mink and river otters from Oregon," in
Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference 3:1763-780.
13. Elliott et al. (1998), "Chlorinated hydrocarbons in livers of American mink
(Mustela vison) and river otter (Lontra canadensis) from the Columbia
and Fraser River Basins, 1990-1992," in Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 57: 229-252.
14. Grove, R.A., and CJ. Henny (2007), "Environmental contaminants in
male river otters from Oregon and Washington, USA, 1994-1999," in
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 145:49-73.
15. Buck, J.A., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs (1999), "Changes in
productivity and environmental contaminants in bald eagles nesting along
the Lower Columbia River," USFWS and Oregon Cooperative Wildlife
Research Unit. Study ID 13420-1130-1F16.
16. Buck, J.A., R.G. Anthony, C.A. Schuler, F.B. Isaacs, and D.E. Tillitt
(2005), "Changes in productivity and contaminants in bald eagles nesting
along the Lower Columbia River, USA.," in Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 1779-1792.
17. Henny, C.J., R.A. Grove, and J.L. Kaiser (2008), "Osprey distribution,
abundance, reproductive success and contaminant burdens along
the Lower Columbia River, 1997/1998 versus 2004", in Archives of
Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 54:525-534.
18. Siipola, M., T. Sherman, R. Abney, D. Ebner, J. Stevens, J. Clarke,
and G. Ray (2007), "Corbiculafluminea: a potential freshwater
bioaccumulative test species," USAGE Portland District and the Engineer
Research Development Center (poster).
PBDEs
1. Samara, F, C. W. Tsai, D. S. Aga (2006) "Determination of potential
sources of PCBs and PBDEs in sediments of the Niagara River", in
Environmental Pollution 139:3 489-497.
O
b
30
m
-n
m
30
m
O
m
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS
JANUARY 2009
p
b
30
m
~n
m
30
m
z
o
m
2. Hale, R.C., MJ. La Guardia, E.P. Harvey, T.M. Mainor, W.H. Duff, and
M.O. Gaylor, (2001), "Polybrominated diphenyl ethers flame retardants
in Virginia Freshwater Fishes (USA)," in Environmental Science and
Technology, 35, 23:4585 - 4591.
3. North, K.D., "Tracking Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE) Releases
in a Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent, Palo Alto, California, USA"
Karin.North@cityofpaloalto.org.
4. Song, M., C. Shaogang, J. Letcher, and R. Seth (2006), "Fate, partitioning
and mass loading of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) during the
treatment processing of municipal waste," in Environmental Science and
Technology, 40:6241-6246.
5. Hale, R.C., M. Alaee, J.B. Manchester-Neesvig, H.M. Stapleton, and
M.G. Ikonomou (2003), "Polybrominated diphenyl ethers flame retardants
in the North American environment," in Environmental International,
29:771-779.
6. Watanabe, I., and S. Sakai (2003), "Environmental release and behavior of
brominated flame retardants," m Environmental International, 29:665-682.
7. Rayne, S., M.G. Ikonomou, and B. Antcliffe (2003), "Rapidly increasing
brominated diphenyl ethers concentrations in the Columbia River System
from 1992 to 2000," in Environmental Science and Technology, 37(13):
2847-2854.
8. Serdar, D., and A. Johnson (2006), PCBs, PBDEs and Selected Metals in
Spokane River Fish, 2005, Ecology Publication 06-03-025.
9. Johnson, A., K. Seiders, C. Deligeannis, K. Kinney, P. Sandvik,
B. Era-Miller, and D. Alkire (2006), PBDE Flame Retardants in
Washington Rivers and Lakes: Concentrations in Fish and Water, 2005-06,
Washington Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-03-027, August,
Olympia, Washington.
10. Johnson, A., and N. Olson, (2001), "Analysis and Occurrence of
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Washington State Freshwater Fish,"
in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 41:339-344,
April.
11. LCREP (2007), Lower Columbia River and Estuary Ecosystem
Monitoring: Water Quality and Salmon Sampling Report, 70 p. Lower
Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Portland, Oregon.
12. Siipola, M., T. Sherman, R. Abney, D. Ebner, J. Stevens, J. Clarke,
and G. Ray (2007), "Corbiculafluminea: a potential freshwater
bioaccumulative test species," USAGE Portland District and the Engineer
Research Development Center (poster).
Section 6.0: Current and Planned Toxics Reduction Efforts
1. ODEQ (2008), Human Health Focus Group Report: Oregon Fish and
Shellfish Consumption Rate Project, June.
2. EPA Region 8 website, http://epa.gov\region8\superfund\mt\milltowncfr.
3. Henny, C.J., R.A. Grove, J.L. Kaiser, and V.R. Bentley (2004), "An
evaluation of Osprey eggs to determine spatial residue patterns and effects
of contaminants along the lower Columbia River, USA", pp. 369-388, in
Raptors Worldwide, R.D. Chancellor and B.-U. Meyburg, eds., WWGBP
and MME, Budapest, Hungary.
4. Fuhrer, G.J., J. Morace, H.M. Johnson, J. Rinella, J.C. Ebbert, S.S. Embrey,
I.R. Waite, K.D. Carpenter, D.R. Wise, and C. A. Hughes (2004), "Water
Quality in the Yakima River Basin, Washington 1999-2000," USGS
Circular 1237.
5. Walla Walla Pesticide Stewardship Partnership (2008), Summary
Report: Pesticide Monitoring in the Walla Walla Basin 2005-2007
Results, Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, September 2007, or http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/
pubs/factsheets/community/pesticide.pdf.
6. Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Disposal Program, http://
www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/Pesticides/pdp/indexdisposalmain.php.
7. ODEQ (2008), Environmental Quality Commission, Mutual Agreement
and Order, July 17, 2008, DEQ no. AQ/V-ER-08-022.
8. USGS (2007), http://minerals.usgs.gov/west/projects/nngd.htm.
-------
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT FOR TOXICS JANUARY 2009
p
b
3D
m
~n
m
3D
9. Portland General Electric average of 2000-2006 emissions reported for the ^
Boardman, Oregon, plant. Q
m
Section 8.0: Toxics Reduction Initiatives
1. ODEQ (1996), Identification of Sources of Pollutants to the Lower
Columbia River Basin, prepared by the Lower Columbia River Bi-State
Water Quality Program, T. Rosetta and D. Borys, June.
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper
with a minumum 50% post-consumer
fiber using vegetable-based ink
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
-------
|