EPA910/R-08-001 I December 2008
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Sediment Quality in the
Mid-Columbia River between
Vantage, Washington and
McNary Dam
tUS [NVIRONMfNTSl PROlfCTION AGENCY'
RESEARCH
Office of Environmental Assessment
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
-------
Saskatchewan
Mid Columbia
Project Area
U t 3 h
Index map of the mid-Columbia project area
-------
Sediment Quality in the Mid-Columbia River Between
Vantage, Washington and Me Nary Dam
Authors:
Michael Watson, Michael Cox, Lorraine Edmond
December 2008
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Publication Number: EPA 910/R-08-001
Suggested Citation:
Watson, M., Cox, M., and L. Edmond, 2008. Sediment Quality in the Mid-Columbia River Between
Vantage, Washington and McNary Dam. EPA 910/R-08-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Environmental Assessment, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington.
-------
(blank page)
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
Table of Contents
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
List of USEPA Region 10 Personnel Contributing to this Report vii
Acknowledgments vii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms x
Units xii
Executive Summary 1
1.0 Introduction 5
1.1. Background 5
1.2. Contaminants of concern 6
1.2.1. Other studies 6
1.3. Study area 7
2.0 Materials and Methods 7
2.1. Strategy and design 7
2.2. Sampling locations and field collection 8
2.3. Sampling 9
2.3.1. Sample collection 9
2.3.2. Equipment decontamination 9
2.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements 10
2.4.1. Sample handling, custody and shipment requirements 10
2.4.2. Instrument calibration procedures and frequency 10
2.4.3. Inspection /acceptance requirements for supplies and consumables.. 10
2.5. Analytical methods, reporting limits, and holding time requirements 10
2.6. Analytical laboratories involved in this research, and their responsibilities. 11
3.0 Results and Discussion 11
3.1 Metals 11
3.1.1 Arsenic 12
3.1.2 Cadmium 13
3.1.3 Chromium 13
3.1.4 Copper 13
3.1.5 Lead 14
3.1.6 Mercury 14
3.1.7 Nickel 14
3.1.8 Zinc 14
3.1.9 Metals summary 15
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
3.2 Organic compounds 15
3.2.1 Pesticides 16
3.2.1.1 DDTs 16
3.2.1.2 Other organochlorine pesticides 17
3.2.1.3 Organophosphate and carbamate pesticides 17
3.2.1.4 Herbicides & fungicides, including halogenated,
chlorophenolic, and organonitrogen compounds 18
3.2.1.5 Pesticide summary 18
3.2.2 Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Aroclors 19
3.2.3 Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD and poly chlorinated
dibenzo-p-furans (PCDF) 19
3.2.3.1 Dibenzo-p-dioxins 19
3.2.3.2 Dibenzo-p-furans 19
3.2.3.3 Dioxin and furan summary 20
3.2.4 Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) 20
3.2.4.1 PBDEs summary 21
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 21
5.0 References Cited 24
11
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
List of Tables
Table 1. Sample Locations, Mid-Columbia sediments
Table 2. Target compounds, number of samples, analytical laboratories, methods, and reporting limits
Table 3. Geographic comparisons of metals concentrations in Columbia Basin and nationwide
Table 4. Metals: Comparison with ecological guidelines in mid-Columbia sediments
Table 5. Metal concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Table 6. Concentrations of detected organic compounds compared to ecological and human health
guidelines
Table 7. Organochlorine pesticides
Table 8. Organophosphates and carbaryl
Table 9. Herbicides and fungicides
Table 10. PCB Aroclors
Table 11. Poly chlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans
Table 12. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs)
in
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
List of Figures
Figure 1. Mid- Columbia region, and sediment sampling sites
Figure 2. Arsenic concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 3. Arsenic data sorted by concentration
Figure 4. Arsenic concentrations versus percent fines
Figure 5. Arsenic concentration versus total organic carbon (TOC)
Figure 6. Arsenic geographic comparisons
Figure 7. Cadmium concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 8. Cadmium data sorted by concentration
Figure 9. Cadmium concentrations versus percent fines
Figure 10. Cadmium concentrations versus total organic carbon (TOC)
Figure 11. Cadmium geographic comparisons
Figure 12. Chromium concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 13. Chromium data sorted by concentration
Figure 14. Chromium concentrations versus percent fines
Figure 15. Chromium concentrations versus total organic carbon (TOC)
Figure 16. Chromium geographic comparisons
Figure 17. Copper concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 18. Copper data sorted by concentration
Figure 19. Copper concentrations versus percent fines
Figure 20. Copper concentrations versus total organic carbon (TOC)
iv
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
Figure 21. Copper geographic comparisons
Figure 22. Lead concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 23. Lead data sorted by concentration
Figure 24. Lead concentrations versus percent fines
Figure 25. Lead concentrations versus total organic carbon (TOC)
Figure 26. Lead geographic comparisons
Figure 27. Mercury concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 28. Mercury data sorted by concentration
Figure 29. Mercury concentrations versus percent fines
Figure 30. Mercury concentrations versus total organic carbon (TOC)
Figure 31. Mercury geographic comparisons
Figure 32. Nickel concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 33. Nickel data sorted by concentration
Figure 34. Nickel concentrations versus percent fines
Figure 35. Nickel concentrations versus total organic carbon (TOC)
Figure 36. Nickel geographic comparisons
Figure 37. Zinc concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 38. Zinc data sorted by concentration
Figure 39. Zinc concentrations versus percent fines
Figure 40. Zinc concentrations versus total organic carbon (TOC)
Figure 41. Zinc geographic comparisions
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
Figure 42. Total DDT concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 43. P,p'-DDE concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 44. P,p'-DDD concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 45. P'p'-DDT concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 46. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octa-CDD concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 47. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hepta-CDD concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 48. Sum of PBDE congeners in mid-Columbia sediments
Figure 49. Detected PBDE congeners, mid-Columbia sediments
VI
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2008
US EPA Personnel Who Contributed to this Report
EPA Region 10, Seattle
Project Manager:
Project Officer:
Editorial Coordination,
Organization & Oversight,
Graphics, Figures, Design:
Internal review:
Website and data management:
GIS support:
Quality Assurance (QA) Officer:
Field Operations:
Region 10 QA Sample Coordinator:
EPA Region 10 Laboratory:
EPA Field Team:
Michael Watson (2006-2008)
Patricia Cirone (2003-2006)
Michael Watson
Lorraine Edmond and Michael Cox
Laura Buelow, Dana Davoli, Bruce Duncan, Gretchen
Hayslip, Lillian Herger
Don Matheny and Carol Harrison
Peter Leinenbach
Ginna Grepo-Grove, Roy Araki, and Brandon Perkins
Dave Terpening, Doc Thompson, and Duane Kama
Laura Castrilli
Peggy Knight, Kathy Parker, Gerald Dodo, and Linda
Ander son-C arnahan
Office of Environmental Assessment inspectors and other
OEA Staff as needed
EPA Region 10, Hanford Office: Larry Gadbois
EPA Region 7 Laboratory, Kansas City:
Laura Webb, Laura Webb, Chemist (Analysis for PCB congeners, PCDD and PCDF)
Dale I. Bates, and Nicole Roblez
vn
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
Acknowledgments
This project relied on the cooperation of numerous federal, state and local agencies. Special
recognition for their efforts in the design and reconnaissance planning for this study is due the
following participants:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
Paul Hoffarth, Region 3, Pasco (Mountain whitefish contamination)
Art Viola, Region 4, Wenatchee
Brad James, Sturgeon biologist, Vancouver (Sturgeon contamination)
Chris Fulton, Dayton, Fish biologist, (Mountain whitefish biology)
Washington Department of Ecology:
Art Johnson, Environmental Assessment Program, Olympia (Walla Walla River
contamination issues)
Keith Seiders, Olympia (PBDEs)
Washington Department of Agriculture:
Jim Cowles, Toxicologist ESA Program, Olympia (Sample locations)
US Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District:
Steve Juul, District Office (Sampling)
Dave Coleman, McNary Dam Operations Manager
Scott Sutliff, Ice harbor Dam Operations Manager
Rex Baxter, Fish Biologist (Non-salmonid fish passage at dams)
Grant County PUD:
Marvin Scott, Ephrata (sampling)
Pacific Northwest Nuclear Laboratory (PNNL), Hanford:
Dennis Dauble, Director, Natural Resources Division, PNNL (Fish biologist)
Gregory Patton, Research Scientist, PNNL
Nancy Doran, Librarian, PNNL
US Bureau of Reclamation:
Sharon Churchill, Ephrata (Past studies on Lower Crab Creek)
Vlll
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
US Geologic Survey:
Sandra Embrey, NAWQA Hydrologist, Tacoma
James Hatten, GIS Coordinator (Contamination below Dallas Dam)
Tim Bartish, Fort Collins, CO (Biomonitoring and environmental status and trends)
Jo Ellen Hinch (Fish contamination below Ice Harbor Dam and in Hanford Reach)
Tom Cuffney (Fish and invertebrates in the Yakima River Basin)
US EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC:
Leanne Stahl (contaminants in largescale sucker tissue)
Oregon State University:
Molly Webb (white sucker contamination)
Colder Associates, Ltd.
Dana Schmidt, Castlegar, BC (fish biologist, mountain whitefish biology)
South Columbia Irrigation District:
Chris Magan, Water Quality, Pasco (GIS maps of irrigation district)
IX
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
December 2008
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
BDE
CAFO
CDD
CDF
CRBC
DDE
DDT
ODD
EMAP
GPS
HCB
HpCDD
HpCDF
HxCDD
HxCDF
J
JL
U
UJ
MCPA
MCPP
MEL
MLD
NAWQA
OCDD
OCDF
ODEQ
OEA
PBDE
PCB
PCP
PEC
PeCDD
PeCDF
QA/QC
brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
confined animal feeding operations
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
chlorinated dibenzo-p-furan
Columbia River Basin Contaminant Study
1,1 -dichloro-2,2-&/Xp-chlorophenyl)ethylene
1,1,1 -trichloro-2,2-&/XP'cnlorophenyl)ethane
1,1 -dichloro-2,2-&/Xp-chlorophenyl)ethane
Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Program
global positioning system
hexachl orob enzene
heptachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin
heptachloro dibenzo-p-furan
hexachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin
hexachloro dibenzo-p-furan
(laboratory qualifier code): The identification of the analyte is acceptable;
the reported value is an estimate.
(laboratory qualifier code): The identification of the analyte is acceptable;
the reported value is an estimate and may be biased low. The actual
value is expected to be greater than the reported value.
(laboratory qualifier code): The analyte was not detected at or above the
reported value.
(laboratory qualifier code): The analyte was not detected at or above the
reported value. The reported value is an estimate.
(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy) acetic acid
2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy) propionic acid
Manchester Environmental Laboratory (US EPA Region 10, Seattle)
minimum limit of detection
National Water Quality Assessment Program (USGS)
octachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin
octachloro dibenzo-p-furan
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Environmental Assessment (U SEP A Region 10, Seattle)
polybrominated diphenyl ether
polychlorinated biphenyl
pentachlorophenol
Probable Effect Concentration
pentachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin
pentachloro dibenzo-p-furan
Quality Assurance /Quality Control
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RL reporting limit(s)
RM river mile
SLV screening level value
SOP standard operating procedures
STP sewage treatment plant
2378-TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2378-TCDF 2,3,7,8-tetraclorodibenzo-p-furan
TEC Threshold Effect Concentration
TOC total organic carbon
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
WDOE Washington State Department of Ecology
2,4-D 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid
2,4-DB 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) butyric acid
2,4,5-T 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid
2,4,5-TCP 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-TCP 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
XI
-------
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment December 2008
Units
cm centimeter (one one hundreth of a meter)
ng/kg nanograms per kilogram (parts per trillion, ppt)
Hg/kg micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion, ppb)
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram (parts per million, ppm)
kg kilogram
g gram
|i micron (one millionth of a meter)
|il microliter
ml milliliter
1 liter
dw dry weight
ww wet weight
xn
-------
Executive Summary
During 2004, contaminant analyses were performed on 45 sediment samples taken from 33 pre-
selected sites along 280 miles of the mid-Columbia River in Washington State, from Wanapum
Dam downstream to McNary Dam (Figure 1, Table 1).
The goals of the study were twofold:
• Identify spatial patterns in sediment-borne contaminants that might be correlated with sources
and uptake of some of the contaminants found to be prevalent in mid-Columbia fish tissue in
a prior study (USEPA Region 10's Columbia River Basin Contaminants Study; (CRBC;
USEPA 2002))
• Identify and prioritize likely contaminated sediment loading sites important to the mid-
Columbia River, and evaluate these sites for their potential to act as "hot spots," or sinks, for
contaminants within the ecosystem.
This study was designed to gather specific information on the distribution of mid-Columbia
sediment contaminants of concern in known or suspected source areas and in areas where
sediment might be expected to accumulate. Therefore, the sampling locations were not
randomly selected but were based on previous sediment analyses, adjacent industrial and
agricultural land uses, and site-specific information obtained during a preliminary field
reconnaissance of the mid-Columbia area conducted in 2003 (USEPA, 2003). In general, all
sediment samples were taken from sheltered backwater areas, downstream of islands, and in
similar riverine locations in which water currents are slowed, favoring accumulation of finer
sediment along the channel bottom.
Four types of sampling sites were targeted for study: 1) lower regions of important tributaries
such as Crab Creek and the Yakima, Snake, and Walla Walla rivers, 2) areas of greater
population and recreational use such as the Tri-Cities region and Lake Wallula, 3) selected sites
associated with nearby point sources like pulp mills, sewage treatment outfalls, irrigation returns,
and parks, and 4) sediment deposit!onal areas behind three major dams in the mid-Columbia
Basin. These included sampling sites directly above Ice Harbor Dam on the lower Snake River,
as well as above two main stem Columbia River Dams; Wanapum and McNary.
The sediment samples were tested for various heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides,
several PCB Aroclors, specific congeners of dibenzo-dioxins and dibenzofurans, and eight
different polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
Results
For the majority of the analytes, sediment concentrations were below the reporting levels
designed to detect sites which constitute "hot spots," which are unusually elevated
concentrations compared to other sites in the Basin. Many of the contaminants that were
1
-------
detected were found at low levels that could only be estimated rather than quantified with
confidence. For specific contaminants, however, the following trends were observed.
Metals
Although metals occur naturally in the environment, they can have harmful effects on organisms
at elevated concentrations. Cadmium and zinc were above the threshold effect concentrations
(TEC) in about one-third of the samples. The TEC values (MacDonald et al, 2000) are intended
to identify contaminant concentrations below which harmful effects on sediment dwelling
organisms are not expected. Cadmium and zinc were also above the probable effect
concentration (PEC) in 2% of the samples. The PEC values (MacDonald et al, 2000) are
intended to identify contaminant concentrations above which harmful effects on sediment-
dwelling organisms were expected to occur frequently. The remaining six metals targeted for
analysis were comparable to other areas within the Columbia River Basin and were generally
below their respective TECs and all were below their respective PECs.
A few specific sample locations stood out with regard to their metals content. These include:
1) the upper Yakima River Delta region (Station ID 18, the highest sample for mercury,
cadmium, and zinc); 2) the Lower Yakima River Delta (Station ID 20, the highest sample for
nickel); 3) the area above Priest Rapids Dam (Station ID 6b, the highest sample for both
chromium and copper and second highest in cadmium and nickel); 4) Hanford Reach 100-F Area
(Station ID 9, the highest in lead, arsenic, and second highest in copper); and 5) the Hanford
Slough Site 100 (Station ID 10, the second highest in lead and zinc).
Pesticides
Sediment samples were analyzed for both pesticides that are currently being used and for
"legacy" pesticides that were banned many years ago but that are still commonly found in the
environment. DDT-related compounds were widespread and were detected in 64% of samples.
Hexachlorobenzene was detected in 9% of samples. Three organophosphate pesticides were
found: Azinphos- methyl, Ethyl chlorpyrifos, and Malathion. Azinphos methyl was found in
4% of samples and Malathion and Ethyl chlorpyrifos were detected in 7% of samples. Thirty
chlorinated acids, chlorophenolic, and organonitrogen herbicides were tested. The only
herbicide/fungicide compounds detected were Dacthal (one sample) Pentachlorophenol (two
samples), 2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol (one sample), and 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol (one sample).
Although widespread, concentrations of legacy organochlorine pesticides like the DDT series
were either below detection limits or, where detected, were generally below ecological or human
health sediment guidelines.
PCS Aroclors
Aroclors were commercial mixtures of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that were widely used
for their properties of chemical and thermal stability. They were banned in the 1970s, due to
concerns about their toxicity. This study analyzed sediment samples for seven of the commonly
-------
occurring Aroclor mixtures (Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260). None of
the seven Aroclors were detected in any of the samples. Analysis of the sediment samples for
specific co-planar and dioxin-like PCB congeners were beyond the scope of this study.
Chlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans
Dioxins and furans are persistent toxic compounds that are created as a byproduct of combustion
and manufacturing processes. This study analyzed sediment samples for 17 individual dioxin
and furan compounds. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in any samples while 2,3,7,8-TCDF was
found in one sediment sample. Octa CDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 was the most commonly found dioxin,
occurring in 60% of samples, while HeptaCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 was detected in 19% of samples.
The highest concentrations for both Hepta and Octa CDD were found in a single sample taken
from above Priest Rapids Dam (Station ID 6a). This location was also the sole occurrence for
both Hepta and Octa CDF. The concentrations were generally below the screening levels for
humans which represent concentrations in sediment below which chemicals would not be
expected to accumulate in fish tissue above levels acceptable for human consumption (ODEQ,
2007).
PBDEs
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are flame retardants that are present in many consumer products
and are increasingly being found in the environment. Samples were analyzed for eight PBDE
congeners (PBDEs 28, 47, 99, 100, 153, 154, 183, and 209). Six of the eight congeners were
detected. The three most commonly detected PBDE congeners were: PBDE 47 which was found
in 60% of samples; PBDE 100 which was found in 56% of samples; and PBDE 99 which was
found in 56% of samples. Detected less frequently were: PBDE 28, found in 27% of samples;
PBDE 153, found in 20% of samples; and PBDE 154, found in 18% of samples. PBDEs 183 and
PBDE 209 were not detected.
Conclusions /recommendations
• No spatial pattern in sediment concentrations was seen that could be correlated to sources of
contaminants identified in an earlier Region 10 CRBC study of Columbia River fish
contaminants (USEPA 2002).
• No obvious hot spots or sinks for sediment contaminants were found in this area.
• Cadmium and zinc appear to show elevated concentrations compared to other areas within the
basin. There are several potential sources of these metals including smelters upstream of the
site above Grand Coulee dam as well as other non-point loading sources. Both of these
metals merit further study.
• Several organochlorine pesticides, mainly DDTs, were detected, but at low levels near the
3
-------
reporting limit. Although the concentrations could not be quantified precisely, the estimated
levels were generally below ecological guidelines for sediments and screening levels for
humans.
• Several organophosphate pesticides, including Azinphos-methyl were detected in a few
samples. In addition, although Ethyl chlorpyrifos is known to be one of the more persistent
and commonly used organophosphate pesticides, the detection of Ethyl chlorpyrifos and
Malathion in a few of the samples raises a concern about the potential impacts of currently
used agricultural chemicals on the health of the Columbia Basin aquatic ecosystem.
• Seven of the common PCB Aroclors were analyzed, but none were detected in any of the
samples. Several of the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans were detected in a few
samples, but were generally below the screening levels for humans.
• The presence of various PBDEs, and especially the more toxic lower brominated PBDE
congeners at |ig/kg quantities in nearly 60 percent of the sediment samples indicates
additional investigation is needed.
• Targeted analytes in future studies should also include herbicides such as Glyphosate, which
is associated with aquatic toxicity, and has been recently detected in various urban streams in
the US (Kolpin, et al., 2006). Glyphosate was also recently detected in a small urban
tributary associated with Portland, Oregon's Clackamas River drainage, Lower Columbia
Basin (Carpenter, 2007).
• Future monitoring studies of sediment in the mid-Columbia main stem area should focus on
emerging contaminants instead of continuing to focus on legacy organochlorines like DDTs
and PCBs. This should include monitoring for PBDEs, pharmaceuticals and personal care
products along with pesticides that have a potential for impacts on aquatic species, especially
organophosphates such as Azinphos-methyl. Chemicals from storm water runoff from
urbanized areas, as well as groundwater and surface water pollutants from large confined
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are also stressors on this ecosystem which will require
increased attention.
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
The objective of this sediment contaminant survey was to identify the sediment concentration of
chemicals that were measured in fish tissue during the Columbia River Fish Contaminant Survey
(CRBC; USEPA 2002). In addition to chemicals that were found in fish tissue, other chemicals
were added to the list of sediment measurements based on the likelihood of impacts to human
health and the environment. Baseline data provided by this study will inform future sediment
contaminant studies in the mid-Columbia region.
Many of the chemicals found in fish tissue during the fish tissue survey are no longer permitted
for release into the environment. However, they continue to contaminate the food chain. The
purpose of continuing to search for legacy pollutants is to ascertain the possible routes of
exposure of these chemicals to fish and other aquatic organisms.
The goals of this study were twofold:
1. Identify any spatial patterns in sediment-borne contaminants which might be correlated with
sources and uptake of some of the contaminants which were found to be prevalent in mid-
Columbia fish tissue in USEPA Region 10's 2002 Columbia River Basin Contaminants Study.
2. Identify and prioritize likely contaminated sediment loading sites important to the mid-
Columbia River, and evaluate these sites for their potential to act as "hot spots," or sinks, for
contaminants within the ecosystem (USEPA 2003, 2004).
For the CRBC, USEPA Region 10, in collaboration with several tribes, completed an assessment
of chemical contaminants in resident and anadromous fish species caught and consumed by four
Native American Tribes (Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Yakama) in the Columbia
River Basin. The CRBC study found the highest levels of contamination in four resident fish
species collected from the mid-Columbia and lower Yakima Rivers. These species were the
white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus\ mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni),
largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus\ and channel catfish (Ictaluruspunctatus).
Although there are several dams on the main stem of the Columbia River and its tributaries, the
white sturgeon, largescale sucker, and mountain whitefish inhabiting the Hanford Reach and
Lake Wallula may also range into the lower Snake and lower Walla Walla Rivers. White
sturgeon are known to move downstream through dams (North et al., 1993), and largescale
suckers and mountain whitefish have been observed moving both ways through dams (R. Baxter,
personal communication February 11, 2003; J.D. Pock, personal communication March 25,
2003).
-------
1.2 Contaminants of concern
For the present study, all sediment samples were analyzed in the laboratory for five major
categories of contaminants:
• Metals
• Pesticides, including commonly occurring "legacy" chlorinated pesticides, as well as various
organophosphate pesticides, and one carbamate (carbaryl). Samples were also analyzed for
30 selected herbicides and fungicides known to be commonly used in agricultural practices
throughout the mid-Columbia Basin.
• PCB Aroclors. (Due to resource limitations, analyses for specific PCB congeners and dioxin-
like PCBs were not conducted).
• Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzo-p-furans (PCDD/PCDF).
• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
Expanding upon USEPA's 2002 CRBC findings in fish tissue, a more comprehensive list of
targeted chemical analytes was developed for the present study of mid-Columbia sediments to
include additional contaminants found in recent surveys conducted by the US Geologic Survey
(Majewski et al., 2003) and US Department of Energy (2006) and included a few additional
chemicals because of their high frequency of use in the mid-Columbia region. See Table 2 for a
complete list of analytes along with their reporting limits. In addition, sediment samples were
assessed at the laboratory for standard chemistry QA/QC criteria. Total organic carbon (TOC)
and percent fines (particle size less than 63 microns diameter) were also assessed for each
sediment sample.
1.2.1 Other studies
The existing information on contaminants in water, sediment, and fish tissue in the mid-
Columbia Basin is extensive, but is limited to a few localized areas in this large basin. Data on
the distribution of pesticides and other organic compounds in water, sediment, and fish tissue in
the Yakima River are available (Johnson et al. 1986 & 1988, Rinella et al. 1992 & 1999, and
others). Considerable water, sediment, and tissue data on trace metals and radioactive chemicals
are available from samples taken along the west bank of the Columbia River, in the Hanford
Reach (US Department of Energy, 2006). Multi-year surveys of trace element and
organochlorine pesticide contamination in sediment, water and fish tissue in the irrigation return
water from the east bank of the Columbia River in and above the Hanford Reach are also
available (Embry & Block 1995, Gruber & Munn 1996, Williamson et al. 1998). Less
information is available for the Walla Walla River (Seiders, et al., 2007) and for the reservoir
above Priest Rapids Dam (Normandeau Associates, 2000). Some fish tissue analysis is available
-------
from the lower Snake River below Ice Harbor Dam, (Beak Consultants, Inc. 1989, Dethloff et al.
2001), and some sediment analyses are available for Lake Wallula (Johnson & Heffner, 1993).
There is spatial and temporal variability among the studies cited above, and some of the reports
do not include information on all of the contaminants of interest. The existing information,
therefore, is not adequate to identify or evaluate all of the potential sources of the contaminants
of concern that were found in the fish tissue analyzed for USEPA's CRBC study (USEPA 2002).
1.3 Study area
The study area is primarily the main stem Columbia River, extending from approximately River
Mile (RM) 420 (Vantage area, above Wanapum Dam) to RM 292.2 (McNary Dam) in
Washington State, (Figure 1). It also includes parts of the Columbia reservoirs that back up
water into the lower parts of some of the tributaries such as the Walla Walla, Snake, and Yakima
rivers.
2.0 Materials and Methods
2.1 Strategy and design
This study was designed to gather specific information on the distribution of mid-Columbia
sediment contaminants of concern in known or suspected source areas and in areas where
sediment might be expected to accumulate. Therefore, the sampling locations were not
randomly selected but were based on previous sediment analyses, adjacent industrial and
agricultural land uses, and site-specific information obtained during a preliminary field
reconnaissance of the mid-Columbia area conducted in 2003 (USEPA, 2003). In general, all
sediment samples were taken from sheltered backwater areas, downstream of islands, and in
similar riverine locations in which water currents are slowed, favoring accumulation of finer
sediment along the channel bottom.
Four types of sampling sites were targeted for study:
• lower regions of important tributaries such as Crab Creek and the Yakima, Snake, and Walla
Walla rivers,
• areas of greater population and recreational use such as the Tri-Cities region and Lake
Wallula,
• selected sites associated with nearby point sources like pulp mills, sewage treatment outfalls,
irrigation returns, and parks, and
• sediment deposit!onal areas behind three major dams in the mid-Columbia Basin.
The presence of fine sediment was used an indicator of chemical concentration since sorption of
chemicals tends to increase with increased surface area (fine sediment). Thus, the sites were
selected based on the high amount of fine sediment. The inclusion of sediment size and total
7
-------
organic carbon was to test the theory that these sediment measures could be used to predict high
levels of metal and organic concentrations in sediments.
For metals, which occur naturally in sediment, comparisons were made to studies from the upper
and lower Columbia River, as well as to a national data set. For organic compounds,
comparisons were made with screening values used to evaluate potential risk to ecological and
human health.
Summary statistics were calculated for all analytes. For metals, the quartile intervals were
compared to other datasets, and the quantities were compared to percent fines and total organic
carbon using regression analysis.
2.2 Sampling locations and field collection
Because of the life histories and distributions of the four fish species discussed in the
introductory section, the study area for this survey includes all waters of Lake Wallula (McNary
Reservoir) including those parts of the reservoir that extend into the Walla Walla, Snake, and
Yakima rivers. It also includes the approximately 45-mile Hanford free-flowing reach of the
mainstem Columbia.
Samples were also collected from the area just above Ice Harbor Dam, which is the final Snake
River dam just prior to its confluence with the mid-Columbia at Pasco. In addition, three areas
along the 180 mile mid-Columbia segment examined here, were targeted to represent areas
where sedimentation is likely to occur. These are located just above three main-stem Columbia
dams (Wanapum, Priest Rapids, and McNary). (See Figure 1, and Table 1). The critical
drainage pathway coming from Lower Crab Creek in the upper NE portion of the mid-Columbia
study segment is also included, as are possible contributions coming from six other irrigation
return sources along the river.
During October of 2004, 45 sediment samples from throughout the study area were collected.
These samples were taken from 33 pre-selected sampling stations (Figure 1, Table 1), between
river mile (RM) 420 near the City of Vantage, WA, downstream for approximately the next 128
river miles, to just above McNary Dam (RM 292.2).
The 33 sediment sampling stations were targeted to identify contaminant loading sources or
potential "hot spots" from a specific drainage area, tributary, or land-based agricultural
/industrial activity. For example, sediment areas impacted by contributions from inflow of
important tributaries like Lower Crab Creek, Yakima River, Snake River, and Walla Walla
River, were chosen in hopes of gaining better understanding of possible contributions from some
of the agricultural drainage areas that influence the mid-Columbia. Other targeted areas included
several major agricultural return canals and aqueducts.
-------
A variety of other types of potential input sites were also sampled. These included portions of
the Hanford reach, as well as specific portions of Lake Wallula in the vicinity of the relatively
industrialized "Tri-Cities" (Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA), which receive input from
POTWs, pulp mill effluent, storm drain runoff, and other typical urban sources. The sampling
design also included sediments taken from near shore sampling sites adjacent to a few important
public parks and recreational areas, as well as from near shore sediment adjoining a popular
small golf and recreational/leisure community along the river.
2.3 Sampling
Most of the contaminants of interest are typically associated with fine sediments, rather than
with coarse-grained sandy sediment or rocky substrates. Therefore, the goal of the sampling was
to obtain sediments with at least 5% fines (i.e., particle size <63 |j,m, or passing through a #230
sieve, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000). At some locations, however, larger-sized sediment
proved to be all that was available under the field conditions encountered, and were thus
collected and analyzed accordingly. In general, every attempt was made to collect sediments
which were as high in fine sediment content as possible at each sampling site.
2.3.1 Sample collection
The majority of sediment samples were collected using an Ekman dredge (dimensions 6 in. x 6
in. x 9 in. deep) or a modified Van Veen grab sampler. Sampling devices were deployed via an
attached boom, either deployed at dockside (i.e. directly off large dam structures such as
McNary or Priest Rapids), or via a boat. Deployment depended on the area(s) being sampled
and their widely varying topographic, benthic and water column conditions. Occasionally,
samples were collected by wading into shallow near shore areas. In each case, attempts were
made to sample the top 15-cm of sediment, but only the sediment in the top 2-cm layer and not
touching the sides or bottom of the samplers was collected for analysis. In all cases, precise
GPS positions were recorded for each sample.
2.3.2 Equipment decontamination
Sampling equipment and tools were brushed and cleaned prior to use and between sample
locations with a phosphate-free detergent (e.g., Liquinox) and rinsed with ambient water and a
final rinse of distilled /de-ionized water. Wherever possible, dedicated sampling tools were used
in sample collection. Non-dedicated sample collection equipment was cleaned with detergent,
rinsed with ambient water, and given a final D/I rinse. Equipment rinsate blanks were collected
for non-dedicated sampling equipment at a frequency of at least 5% of the total number of
samples.
-------
2.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA /QC) requirements
QA samples included field duplicates, matrix spikes, duplicate matrix spikes, and rinsate blanks
for non-dedicated field sampling equipment. The results of the QC requirements and QA sample
analyses were used in data validation to determine the quality, bias and usability of the data
generated.
2.4.1 Sample handling, custody and shipment requirements
Sample numbers were recorded on field data sheets immediately after collection. Samples were
stored in coolers and kept under the custody of the field team at all times. Field samples were
shipped to the laboratory in coolers with ice and cooled to approximately 4° C. Chain of custody
records and other sampling documentation were kept in sealed plastic bags (Ziploc) and taped
inside the lid of the coolers prior to shipment. A temperature blank accompanied each cooler
shipped. Packaging, marking, labeling, and shipping of samples were in compliance with all
regulations promulgated by the U. S. Department of Transportation in the Code of Federal
Regulations, 49 CFR 171-177 and International Air Transport Association regulations.
2.4.2 Instrument calibration procedures and frequency
The field instruments were calibrated prior to use in accordance with the instrument
manufacturer's specifications and/or the analytical methods specified in the quality assurance
plan (QAPP) prepared to describe and guide this research (USEPA 2003, 2004). Field instrument
calibrations were verified after every ten samples. The instruments used in analyses were
calibrated and maintained in accordance with the specified analytical methods and/or the
laboratory's standard operating procedures (SOPs).
2.4.3 Inspection/acceptance requirements for supplies and consumables
All sample containers used for this project were new and certified clean by USEPA Region 10
Manchester Environmental Laboratory (MEL). Sample container clean certification and
analytical runs were kept in the laboratory files. In each case, the field sampling team made
special note of the information on the certificate of analysis that accompanied each sample
container to ensure that they met the specifications and guidance for contaminant free sample
containers.
2.5 Analytical methods, reporting limits, and holding time requirements
The 45 sediment samples were analyzed for the majority of target compounds at the reporting
limits and analytical methods listed in Table 2. Several analytes had only 44 samples analyzed
because one sample was lost due to breakage during shipping. These include the organochlorine
pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, and the PCBs.
10
-------
2.6 Analytical laboratories involved in this research, and their responsibilities
PCDD /PCDF analysis for all samples was conducted at the US EPA Region 7 Laboratory
(Kansas City, Kansas). Analysis for organochlorine pesticides and PCB Aroclors was
conducted by A4 Scientific, Spring, Texas. Individual PCB congeners were not targeted in this
study. Analysis was conducted only for seven commonly occurring PCB Aroclors. The
remainder of the
project's analytical requirements were performed by the USEPA Region 10 Manchester
Environmental Laboratory (MEL), Port Orchard, Washington.
3.0 Results and Discussion
3.1 Metals
The study analyzed sediment samples for several metals including: arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc. The metal results in this study were compared to two
other studies on metals in the Columbia Basin and a nation-wide study. The purpose of the
comparisons is to place the results from this study in a broader geographic context in order to
evaluate whether there are obvious "hot spots" that require further evaluation. The metal results
are also compared with ecological and human health guidelines when available.
Several studies have been completed in the Columbia River Basin and nation-wide evaluating
the concentrations of metals in sediments. For each metal below, the results from three studies
are compared to the 25th percentile, 50th percentile, and 75th percentile from the current study
(see Table 3). One of the studies provides a broad national comparison and the other two allow
both an upstream and downstream comparison within the Columbia.
The studies used for comparison with the current study are: 1) a USGS National Water-Quality
Assessment Program (NAWQA) study that looked at trace-elements concentrations in 541
streambed-sediment samples collected from 20 study areas across the United States (Rice, 1999).
2) an EPA study that collected 77 metal samples from randomly chosen sites in the Lower
Columbia as part of the Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program (EMAP study, Hay slip
et al, 2007); and 3) a study of five reference sites by the USGS of fine-grained beach and bed
sediment to compare with Lake Roosevelt samples (Majewski, et al., 2003).
None of these comparison studies is intended to be used to represent "background"
concentrations for comparison with the study data. Each of the comparison studies cited has
unique aspects that need to be taken into account when interpreting the data. For example, the
NAWQA study's strength as a comparison dataset is that it has a large number of samples and
represents a broad range of environments. It does not attempt to characterize unimpacted areas,
however, which is why the maximums for that dataset were not used in the comparisons.
The strength of the Lower Columbia EMAP dataset is that the study uses unbiased, randomly-
located samples to characterize the area. This sample design allows reporting on the percentage
11
-------
of the area (rather than the number of samples) within the Lower Columbia that is above or
below a certain concentration. However, because these data were collected downstream of the
study area reach, concentrations in the Lower Columbia are not independent of concentrations
within the study area described in this report.
The USGS reference dataset from the upper Columbia is useful primarily because the data come
from upstream in the same watershed, and the samples were located specifically to be outside the
area of Lake Roosevelt that is known to be impacted by metals contamination. This study used
only a small dataset, however, and the data do not represent as diverse an area as the drainage
basin of the mid-Columbia.
In addition to the geographic comparisons described above, the results from this study are
compared against several ecological sediment guidelines. The comparisons are intended to show
whether any of the metals exceeded ecological sediment guidelines and require additional
evaluation. The comparisons are not intended to indicate whether a given location has the
potential for elevated human health risk from the metals. A further evaluation would need to be
conducted to identify any areas of high risk to humans, if those are present. The ecological
sediment guidelines selected for comparison are the Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) and
the Threshold Effect Concentrations (TECs) (see Table 4). The PECs were intended to identify
contaminant concentrations above which harmful effects on sediment-dwelling organisms are
expected to occur frequently. The TECs are intended to identify contaminant concentrations
below which harmful effects on sediment-dwelling organisms are not expected. The TECs and
PECs used in this report are taken from the consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for
freshwater ecosystems developed by MacDonald, Ingersoll, and Berger (2000). When
calculating summary statistics for the metals it was assumed that non-detects had a concentration
of1/^ the MDL.
For human health, no appropriate sediment guidelines or screening level values specific to the
Columbia River were found for metals. Finally, the results for the metals are evaluated to see if
there is a correlation with the percent sediment fines (particle size less than 63 microns) or Total
Organic Carbon (TOC).
3.1.1 Arsenic
Figures 2-6, and Tables 3 and 5 show the results for arsenic. The results are reported as total
arsenic. Twenty-nine of the 45 samples (64%) had detectible levels of total arsenic (MDL of 4.5
mg/kg). Arsenic concentrations ranged from 4.5-20 mg/kg, with a mean of 5.07 mg/kg. The
highest level for arsenic (20 mg/kg) was found at Station 9, taken from Hanford 100-F. This
sample is elevated in comparison to the rest of the arsenic data (2 times the next highest
concentration). As shown in Figures 4 and 5, there is no correlation between arsenic and percent
fines (R-squared = 0.02) or with TOC (R-squared = 0.07). The levels of arsenic in this sediment
study are comparable to other studies (see Table 3 and Figure 6). Only the highest sample was
above the TEC of 9.8 mg/kg and none of the samples were above the PEC of 33 mg/kg (see
Table 4 and Figure 2).
12
-------
3.1.2 Cadmium
Figures 7-11, and Tables 3 and 5 show the cadmium results. Cadmium was detected in 26 of
the 45 (58%) samples (MDL of 0.5 mg/kg). Cadmium concentrations ranged from 0.5 - 6.0
mg/kg with a mean of 1.09 mg/kg. The highest cadmium concentrations were found at
Station 18 from above the Yakima River Delta, which also showed the highest concentrations of
mercury and zinc. As shown in Figures 9 and 10, there was no correlation between cadmium
and the percent fines (R-squared = 0.002) and only a slight correlation with TOC (R-squared =
0.25).
As shown in Table 3 and Figure 11, the concentrations of cadmium are generally higher than
other sites within the Columbia Basin as well as being above those from the national NAWQA
study. Seventeen of forty-five samples (38%) exceeded the TEC eco-benchmark (0.99 mg/kg)
and one sample exceeded the PEC eco-benchmark of 4.98 mg/kg (Table 4 and Figure 7).
Cadmium is one of the metals known to be elevated in the Upper Columbia cleanup site
upstream of the study area (Majewski et al., 2003).
3.1.3 Chromium
Figures 12 - 16, and Tables 3 and 5 show the results for chromium. Total chromium was
detected in 100 percent of the 45 sediment samples (MDL of 0.5 mg/kg). Levels ranged from
6.13 - 23 mg/kg, with a mean of 14.37 mg/kg. The highest chromium concentrations were found
at Station 6b taken from a site immediately above Priest Rapids Dam, which was also the
location of the highest copper concentration. As shown in Figures 14 and 15, there was no
significant correlation between chromium and percent fines (R-squared = 0.01) or TOC (R-
squared = 0.04). As shown in Table 3 and Figure 16, the levels of chromium in this study are
below those found in the other comparison studies. As shown in Table 4 and Figure 12, all
chromium samples are below the ecological guidelines for TEC (43.4 mg/kg) and PEC (111
mg/kg).
3.1.4 Copper
Figures 17-21, and Tables 3 and 5 show the copper results from this study. Copper was
detected in all of the 45 of the sediment samples (MDL of 0.4 mg/kg). Concentrations ranged
from 4.72 to 36.5 mg/kg, with a mean of 17.10 mg/kg. The highest copper concentration (also
highest for chromium) was found at Station 6b immediately above Priest Rapids Dam. As
shown in Figures 19 and 20, there was no correlation between percent fines and copper (R-
squared = 0.06) and only a slight correlation between TOC and copper (R-squared = 0.23).
As shown in Table 3 and Figure 21, the concentrations of copper in most samples in this study
are similar to, or below results from other studies. The highest value detected (36.5 mg/kg)
exceeded the eco-based TEC of 32 mg/kg. None of the samples exceeded the PEC value of 149
mg/kg (See Table 4 and Figure 17).
13
-------
3.1.5 Lead
Figures 22 - 26, and Tables 3 and 5 show the lead results from this study. Lead was detected in
44 of the 45 (98%) samples collected (MDL of 2.5 mg/kg). Lead concentrations ranged from 3.0
-75.9 mg/kg, with a mean of 12.43 mg/kg. The highest concentration was found at Station 9
from the Hanford 100-F site. As shown in Figure 24 and 25, there was no correlation between
percent fines and lead (R-squared = 0.0004) and a very slight correlation between TOC and lead
(R-squared = 0.16). The levels of lead in most of the samples in this study are comparable to
those found in other Columbia Basin studies (See Table 3 and Figure 26). Only 1 of 45 samples
exceeded the eco-based TEC value of 35.8 and no samples exceeded the eco-based PEC value
for lead of 128 mg/kg (See Table 4 and Figure 22).
3.1.6 Mercury
Figures 27 - 31, and Tables 3 and 5 show the mercury results from this study. Mercury results
are reported as total mercury and not speciated into methyl mercury or other organic varieties of
this metal. Mercury was detected in 18 of the 45 (40%) samples (MDL of 0.04 mg/kg). Mercury
concentrations ranged from 0.04 - 0.167 mg/kg, with a mean of 0.04 mg/kg. The highest level of
mercury (0.167 mg/kg) was found at Station 18, taken above the Yakima River Delta area. This
sample also had the highest levels for both cadmium and zinc. As shown in Figures 29 and 30,
there was no correlation between percent fines and mercury (R-squared = 0.001) and only a
slight correlation with mercury and TOC (R-squared = 0.20). The levels of mercury in this study
are slightly higher than in the upstream and downstream comparison datasets from the Columbia
Basin, but less than those found in the national NAQWA study (See Table 3 and Figure 31).
Metal smelters upstream are possible sources of mercury as well as of cadmium and zinc. None
of the samples exceeded either the eco-based TEC value (0.18 mg/kg) or the PEC (1.06 mg/kg)
for mercury (See Table 4 and Figure 27).
3.1.7 Nickel
Figures 32 - 36, and Tables 3 and 5 show the nickel results for this study. Nickel was detected in
all of the 45 samples (MDL of 1 mg/kg). Nickel concentrations ranged from 5.6 to 26.9 mg/kg,
with a mean of 15.10 mg/kg. The highest level of nickel was found at Station 21 in the Yakima
River. As shown in Figures 34 and 35, there was no correlation between nickel and either
percent fines (R-squared = 0.003) or TOC (R-squared = 0.03). The levels of nickel in this study
are lower than in other Columbia Basin studies (See Table 3 and Figure 36). Five of the 45
samples (11%) exceeded the eco-based TEC value of 22.7. None of the samples exceeded the
PEC value of 48.6 mg/kg (See Table 4 and Figure 32).
3.1.8 Zinc
Figures 37-41, and Tables 3 and 5 show the zinc results. Zinc was detected in 100% of the 45
14
-------
sediment samples taken (MDL of 0.4 mg/kg). Zinc concentrations ranged from 25.8 to 558
mg/kg, with a mean of 143.24 mg/kg. The highest concentration for zinc (also for mercury and
cadmium) was found at Station 18 taken from the area below the Yakima River Lower Delta.
Figures 39 and 40 indicated no correlation between percent fines and zinc (R-squared = 0.01)
and some correlation between zinc and TOC (R-squared = 0.29). As shown in Table 3 and
Figure 41 the levels of zinc are generally higher than in other study areas in the Basin. Zinc is
one of the metals known to be elevated in the Upper Columbia cleanup site upstream of the study
area (Majewski et al., 2003). Figure 37 and Table 4 indicate that zinc levels in 15 of the 45
samples (33%) exceeded the TEC of 121 mg/kg and one sample exceeded the PEC of 459 mg/kg
(Yakima River Lower Delta, 558 mg/kg).
3.1.9 Metals summary
The concentrations for the majority of metals evaluated in this study were similar to, or lower
than two studies within the Columbia Basin and one national study. The exceptions were
cadmium which had mean concentrations 3-9 times higher than the other studies and zinc
which had mean concentrations above those of the other studies. Concentrations of cadmium
and zinc were also above the eco-based TEC value in 38% and 33% of samples, respectively.
These metals are known to be elevated at upstream locations where metal smelters have
historically discharged wastes. There were no significant correlations seen between the metals
and percent sediment fines and TOC.
There were several sites that stand out as having the highest concentrations of metals.
Station 18 (Yakima River Lower Delta) had the highest concentrations of mercury, cadmium,
zinc, and nickel. Station 6b (above Priest Rapids Dam) had the highest concentrations of
chromium and copper samples and the second highest concentrations of cadmium and nickel
samples. Station 9 (Hanford Reach, 100-F area) had the highest concentrations of lead and
arsenic samples and the second highest copper concentrations.
3.2 Organic compounds
The study sampled and analyzed several organic compounds including: organochlorine,
organophosphate and carbamate pesticides; herbicides and fungicides; PCB Aroclors; dioxins
and furans; and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). The results for the organic
compounds are compared against several ecological sediment guidelines and where available,
human health sediment screening levels. The comparisons are intended to show whether the
organic compounds significantly exceed the guidelines and/or screening levels and if further
evaluation is needed. As with the metals, the comparisons are not intended to be used to indicate
whether there is potential for elevated human health risk from any of the organic compounds
detected in the sediments. The ecological guidelines selected for comparison are the Probable
Effect Concentrations and Threshold Effect Concentrations as defined and discussed previously
in the metals section. The TECs and PECs used throughout this report are from the consensus-
based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems developed by MacDonald,
Ingersoll, and Berger (2000). PEC and TEC values are not available for all the organic
15
-------
compounds analyzed for in the study.
For human health, the bioaccumulative screening level values (SLVs) for humans for several
compounds are included in Table 6. The SLVs are from the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality document "Guidance for Assessing Bioaccumulative Chemicals of
Concern in Sediment" (ODEQ, 2007). These values represent concentrations in sediment below
which chemicals would not be expected to accumulate in fish tissue above levels acceptable for
human consumption. Two values are presented for humans. The lower value is based on a fish
consumption rate for the general population of 17.5 grams per day and the higher rate is based on
a fish consumption rate of 142 grams per day for subsistence/tribal populations. SLVs are not
available for all the compounds tested in this report.
The majority of organic samples analyzed were either not detected (U-values) or were detected,
but at a concentration that was estimated (J-values). The exceptions were two dioxin congeners
found in several samples at concentrations that were not flagged with either a U- or J-qualifier.
Because the majority of results were reported as J-values, the concentrations for the samples are
presented as ranges of values. No means or other statistics were calculated with the exception of
the two dioxin congeners.
3.2.1 Pesticides
Table 2 provides a list of the pesticides targeted and the analytical reporting limits. For specific
results for the different groups of pesticides, see Tables 7-9 and Figures 42-45. Forty-five
sediment samples were collected from 33 sampling sites. However, one sample was lost due to
breakage during shipment and therefore only 44 samples were analyzed for the organochlorine
pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides.
3.2.1.1 DDTs
Figure 42 and Table 7 show the results for total DDTs. Twenty-nine of the 44 analyzed
sediment samples (66%) showed detectible levels of either DDT, DDE, or DDD (reporting limit
of 0.1 ug/kg). Estimated sediment concentrations for total DDT ranged from 0.11 |ig/kg (as p,p'
DDE) at Station 29b (Burbank Backwater) to a maximum of 4.94 |ig/kg at Station 25b (Twin
Rivers Park). For total DDT, none of the 44 samples exceeded either the TEC (5.3 |ig/kg) or the
PEC (7 |ig/kg) (Figure 42). However, all of the detected samples exceeded the lowest ODEQ
SLV of 0.04 ug/kg.
Figure 43 and Table 7 show the results for p,p' DDE. P,p' DDE was detected in 27 of the 44
samples (61%). The estimated concentrations ranged from 0.11 to 1.6 ug/kg, with the highest
concentration at Station 26c (Snake River above Ice Harbor Dam). All 44 samples were below
the TEC value of 3.2 ug/kg and the PEC value of 31.3 ug/kg (Figure 43 and Table 6).
P,p' DDD was detected in 11 of the 44 (25%) samples. The estimated concentration ranged
from 0.13 ug/kg to 0.73 |J,g/kg. The highest level of p,p' DDD, 0.73 |ig/kg, was found at
16
-------
Station 16 (below the Richland STP Outfall). All the results for p,p' ODD were well below the
TEC value (4.9 jig/kg), and the PEC value (28 jig/kg) (Figure 44 and Table 6).
P,p' DDT, was detected in 12 of the 44 (27%) samples. The estimated concentrations ranged
from 0.13 ug/kg to 2.80 ug/kg. The highest level of p,p' DDT was found at Station 25b (Twin
Rivers Park). P, p' DDT did not exceed the PEC value (62.9 jig/kg), or the TEC value (4.16
jig/kg) (Figure 45 and Table 6).
O,p' DDT was detected in one of the samples (2%), at an estimated concentration of 1.60 |ig/kg,
at Station 25b (Twin Rivers Park). O,p' DDE, and o,p' ODD were not detected in any of the
sediment samples.
3.2.1.2 Other organochlorine pesticides
Table 7 shows the results for other organochlorine pesticides, including Alpha Chlordane;
Gamma Chlordane; cis-Nonachlor; Mirex; Hexachlorobutadiene; Lindane; Hexachlorobenzene;
Toxaphene; and Methoxychlor. The only organochlorine pesticide detected, other than the
DDT's, was Hexachlorobenzene (HCB). HCB was found in four of the 44 sediment samples,
with estimated concentrations ranging from 0.11 |ig/kg (Station 30c, below Boise-Cascade
outfall) to 0.24 |ig/kg (Station 1 at the Wanapum Dam). The reporting limit for HCB was 0.1
ug/kg. HCB was below the lowest SLV of 2.3 |ig/kg. There are no PEC or TEC values for
HCB.
3.2.1.3 Organophosphate and carbamate pesticides
A total of 45 sediment samples, taken from 33 different sampling sites were analyzed for
organophosphate and carbamate pesticides and organonitrogen herbicides. Results for these
groups of pesticides are shown in Table 8. Carbaryl was the only carbamate pesticide analyzed
in the study and was not detected in any of the 45 samples analyzed.
The five organophosphates tested for included Malathion, Diazinon, Parathion-methyl,
Azinphos-methyl, and Chlorpyrifos-ethyl. Three of the organophosphates were detected in this
study: Azinphos-methyl (2 samples), Cholorpyrifos-ethyl (3 samples), and Malathion (3
samples).
Azinphos-methyl was detected in two of the 45 samples (4%), taken from two different sites:
Station 13 (Potholes Canal Aqueduct) contained an estimated 11.0 |ig/kg, while Station 5a
(across the river from Desert Aire Resort) reported an estimated concentration of 17 |ig/kg.
There are no ODEQ SLVs or TECs/PECs for Azinphos-methyl.
Ethyl chlorpyrifos was detected in three of the 45 analyzed sediment samples (7%), at three sites.
None of these three samples contained any of the other organophosphate compounds assessed in
this study. Station 3 (Wanapum Dam, near Vantage) had an estimated concentration of 2.0
jig/kg, while Station 12 (Spoils bank near Wahluke Branch) had an estimated concentration of
17
-------
3.0|ig/kg, and Station 19b (Yakima River below the Hwy 240 Bridge) reported an estimated
concentration of 3.0 |ig/kg. There are no DEQ SLVs or PECs/TECs for Ethyl chlorpyrifos.
Malathion was detected in three of the 45 sediment samples (7%), one from each of three
different sampling sites. These were: (1) Wahluke Branch 5 (Station 11, estimated at 4 ng/kg);
(2) Ezquatzel (Station 14, estimated at 4 |ig/kg); and (3) Yakima River Delta (Station 20,
estimated at 3 jig/kg). There are no DEQ SLVs or PECs/TECs for Malathion.
3.2.1.4 Herbicides and fungicides, including halogenated, chlorophenolic, and
organonitrogen compounds
A total of 45 samples, from 33 sampling sites, were analyzed for 30 various chlorinated acid,
chlorophenolic, and organonitrogen herbicides which are commonly used in agriculture in the
Pacific Northwest. All analyses were performed by the USEPA Region 10 MEL. A complete
list of the analytes selected from this group of target compounds, and results obtained, can be
found in Tables 2 and 9. The only compounds detected from this general group were Dacthal,
Pentachlorophenol (PCP), 2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol, and 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol.
Dacthal (DCPA) was detected in a single sediment sample at Station 30a (below the Boise
Cascade outfall). PCP was detected in two of the 45 sediment samples. The highest estimated
value was 40.0 |ig/kg from Station 6b (above Priest Rapids Dam), with the other sample having
an estimated concentration of 3.1 |ig/kg from Station 30a (below the Boise-Cascade outfall).
This sample also contained measurable DCPA (Dacthal). The estimated 40 ng/kg value for PCP
exceeded the 30 ug/kg lowest SLV DEQ human health sediment value listed for that compound
(Table 6). Station 6b (above Priest Rapids Dam), which had detectable PCP, also contained
2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol at an estimated concentration of 2.7 ug/kg, and 2,3,4,6-
tetrachlorophenol at an estimated concentration of 2.3 ug/kg.
3.2.1.6 Pesticide summary
None of the DDT/DDE/DDD samples exceeded the PEC, TEC, or DEQ bioaccumulation
screening level value with the exception of total DDT, which exceeded DEQ's lowest
bioaccumulation SLV. HCB was the only other organochlorine found, and it was below the
DEQ human health SLV. Three organophosphate pesticides were detected, including two
samples which were positive for Azinphos- methyl. Three samples contained traces of
Malathion, a commonly used insecticide for home and garden purposes. Three other sediment
samples contained Ethyl chlorpyrifos. Thirty different herbicidal and fungicidal compounds
routinely used in the Columbia Basin were sampled. Dacthal, PCP, 2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol,
and 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol were the only compounds detected. This may be in part because
many of these compounds are comparatively unstable in the aquatic environment and break
down relatively quickly compared to more persistent compounds such as organochlorines.
18
-------
3.2.2 Polychlorinated biphenyl Aroclors (PCBs)
All PCB data are shown in Table 10. Forty-five sediment samples were collected from all 33
sampling sites. However, one sample was lost due to breakage during shipping. Consequently,
forty-four samples were analyzed by A4 Analytical Laboratories, in Spring, Texas. The sediment
samples were analyzed for seven commonly occurring PCB Aroclors which might be anticipated
to occur in sediment samples from this region, and which in the literature, are frequently found
in fish tissue. These PCB Aroclors were 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260.
Congener specific PCBs including dioxin-like PCBs were not analyzed due to funding
limitations. These seven Aroclors were not detected in any of the samples.
3.2.3 Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and dibenzo-p-furans (PCDF)
The results for the PCDDs and PCDFs are shown in Table 11 and Figures 46 and 47. Forty-five
samples were collected from 33 sites. All dioxin and furan congener analyses were performed by
USEPA Region 7 Laboratory, Kansas City, Kansas. Samples were analyzed for eight dioxin
congeners and nine furan congeners.
3.2.3.1 Dibenzo-p-dioxins
Only two dioxin congeners were detected: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD)
and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD). The most commonly detected dioxin
congener was OCDD, occurring in 29 of the 45 (60%) sediment samples (see Figure 46). OCDD
levels ranged from 10.6 - 1010.0 ng/kg, with a mean level of 72.8 ng/kg for the detected
samples. The highest concentration of OCDD was found at Station 6a (above Priest Rapids
Dam). The SLVs for OCDD are 2800 or 23,000 ng/kg depending on the fish consumption level
assumed (Table 6), and are both well above the levels detected in this study.
Nine of the 45 samples (18%) contained HpCDD. Concentrations ranged from 5.06 to 91.5
ng/kg, with a mean of 22.6 ng/kg for the detected samples (see Figure 47). As was the case for
OCDD, the highest concentration of HpCDD was found at Station 6a (above Priest Rapids
Dam). The SLVs for HpCDD are 85 or 690 ng/kg, depending upon which level offish
consumption is assumed.
3.2.3.2 Dibenzo-p-furans
Three of the 45 sediment samples (9%) tested in this study showed positive results for
dibenzofurans. Three different dibenzofuran congeners were found in the various samples.
Station 6a (above Priest Rapids Dam) contained 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachloro dibenzo-p-furan
(OCDF) at 39.4 ng/kg. The same sample also contained 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Heptachloro dibenzo-p-
furan (HpCDF) at 5.67 ng/kg A sample from the Yakima River Lower Delta site (Station 20)
contained 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-furan (TCDF) at an estimated concentration of 1.09
ng/kg. The SLVs for these three congeners are 2800 or 23,000 ng/kg (OCDF), 85 or 690 ng/kg
(HpCDF), and 0.09 or 0.8 ng/kg (TCDF), depending upon which level offish consumption is
19
-------
assumed (Table 6). Of the three positive detects for dibenzofurans, only TCDF exceeded SLV
benchmarks.
3.2.3.3 Dioxin and furan summary
Only two of the eight chlorinated dioxin congeners were detected: OCDD, the most commonly
occurring congener, and HpCDD. Three of the nine chlorinated furans were detected: HpCDF,
OCDF and TCDF. The highest concentrations for both HpCDD and OCDD, and also for both
the single occurrences noted for HpCDF and OCDF, were found in a single sample taken from
above Priest Rapids Dam. The concentrations of the dioxins and furans were generally below
the SLVs for humans, with the exception of 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
3.2.4 Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
Table 12 and Figure 48 and 49 show the results for PBDEs. A total of 45 sediment samples,
obtained from all the 33 sampling sites were analyzed for PBDEs. Eight PBDE congeners were
included in the analysis: PBDE 28 (2,4,4'-tribromo); PBDE 47 (2,2',4,4'-tetrabromo); PBDE 99
(2,2',4,4',5-pentabromo); PBDE 100 (2,2',4,4',6-pentabromo); PBDE 153 (2,2',4,4',5,5'-
hexabromo); PBDE 154 (2,2',4,4',5,6'-hexabromo); PBDE 183 (heptabromo); and 209
(decabromo). Of the eight PBDE congeners tested, six were detected.
Total PBDEs were detected in 27 of the 45 samples (60%), but all were detected at low levels
and concentrations were estimated. Total PBDEs in samples with detected levels ranged from
an estimated low of 0.24 ng/kg (Station 30a, below Boise-Cascade Pulp Mill), to an estimated
high of 2.81 |ig/kg (Station 23 below the Port of Kennewick).
The most commonly detected congeners were PBDE 47, PBDE 100, and PBDE 99. PBDE 47
was found in 27 of the 45 sediment samples (60%). Estimated levels ranged from 0.082 ug/kg
(Station 2, Sand Hollow) to 1.2 ug/kg (Station 23, below Port of Kennewick). PBDE 100 was
found in 26 of the 45 samples (56%). Estimated levels ranged from 0.084 (Station 30b, below
Boise Cascade outfall) to an estimated concentration of 0.84 ug/kg (Station 23, below Port of
Kennewick). PBDE 99 was detected in 25 of the 45 samples tested (56%) with an estimated
range of 0.026 ug/kg (Station 30b, below Boise Cascade outfall) to 0.34 ug/kg (Station 23, below
Port of Kennewick).
Lower frequencies of detection and lower estimated levels were reported for PBDE 28 (detected
in 12 samples), PBDE 153 (detected in 9 samples), and PBDE 154 (detected in 8 samples).
PBDEs 183 and 209 were not detected in any of the 45 sediment samples.
Six of the 45 sediment samples (13%) contained estimated amounts of all six of the PBDEs
detected in this study. These were: Station 1 (Wanapum-Vantage); Station 23 (below Port of
Kennewick); Stations 25a and 25b (Twin Rivers Park); Station 29a (Below Kennewick Industrial
Area), and Station 30a (below Boise-Cascade outfall). At this time, there are no TECs, PECs, or
SLVs for PBDEs in sediment.
20
-------
3.2.4.1 PBDEs summary
Of the 209 possible PBDE congeners that exist, PBDEs 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154 are usually part
of the mixture which constitutes the commercially produced "Penta PBDE" mixture of fire
retardant, which is added to materials such as foam cushions and mattresses. Although US
production of this common Penta PBDE mixture was voluntarily stopped in 2004 (Federal
Register, 2004), the key ingredients, PBDEs 47 and 99 were still frequently detected in these
mid-Columbia sediments.
The more highly brominated PBDE congeners such as the "Hexa" PBDEs 153, 154, and "Hepta"
PBDE 183 are typically found as part of commercial PBDE mixtures known commercially as the
"Octa PBDE" class of BDE fire retardants. These are added as fire-retarding components to
plastic housings and hard plastic materials (Darnerud et al., 2001), and were also phased out in
2004 (Federal Register, 2004). These PBDEs were less prevalent in sediment in the study area
than were the "Penta" PBDEs.
The presence of PBDEs, especially the more toxic lower brominated PBDE congeners at ng/kg
quantities in nearly 60 percent of the sediment samples indicates additional investigation is
needed.
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
From the findings of this study, several conclusions and recommendations for future research
may be drawn:
1. No spatial patterns in sediment were seen that could be correlated to sources of contaminants
identified in the 2002 CRBC study of contaminants in Columbia River fish. Nor do the findings
here suggest that sediments are likely to be a sole source of the contaminants seen in the fish.
Much additional analysis would be required to determine the percent contributions of sediment-
borne contaminants to those seen in the various fish species studied in 2002.
2. This study was not designed to characterize the overall sediment quality of this reach of the
mid-Columbia. It involved a relatively small number of samples distributed along 280 river
miles and near the mouths of major tributaries, and targeted 33 sites likely to represent sediment
loading and sequestration of potentially bio-available contaminants. However, no obvious hot
spots or sinks for contaminants were found, even though sites with higher likelihood were
targeted for sampling. Possible exceptions to this are cadmium and zinc, which are elevated
compared to upstream reference sites and to downstream ambient concentrations and also exceed
established threshold effect concentrations in 38% and 32% of samples, respectively. There are
several potential sources for these metals including metal smelters upstream and non-point
loading sources, both of which merit further study.
21
-------
3. Several organochlorine pesticides were detected. Sixty-six percent of the samples had
detectible levels of either DDT, DDE, or DDD. The vast majority of the DDTs were below the
ecological guidelines and human health SLVs for sediments. Hexachlorbenzene was the only
other organochlorine pesticide detected and was found in 9% of the samples analyzed.
4. With certain exceptions, most organophosphate pesticides are typically regarded as being
relatively "non-persistent" in environmental media. However, in the present study, three
organophosphates—Azinphos-methyl, Ethyl chlorpyrifos, and Malathion— were found in a few
sediment samples. Most notable of these was the presence of Azinphos methyl in two samples,
at concentrations of 17 and 11 |ig/kg. Three other samples contained traces of Ethyl
chlorpyrifos, ranging from 2 to 3 |ig/kg. Three samples were also positive for Malathion. One of
these three samples also was positive for Azinphos- methyl. Detectible levels of
organophosphate pesticides in freshwater sediment are not often described in the available
literature for the Columbia Basin. The positive findings for these three toxicants is thus added
reason for further evaluation, and continued concern, about potential impacts of lingering
residues of various current use agricultural chemicals on the health of the Columbia Basin
aquatic ecosystem.
5. Seven common PCB Aroclors were analyzed in this study to identify possible "hot spots"
indicative of historic PCB Aroclor spills or disposal sites. None of the Aroclors were detected.
While small areas of PCB point sources may continue to exist at various places along the river,
this study (which was not designed or intended to detect very low levels of PCBs, or to identify
specific dioxin- like PCB congeners) did not identify any sites which were indicative of areas of
excessive PCB contamination or loading sources. Future work in the area should consider
including specific congener analysis.
6. Although 2,3,7,8-TCDF was found in one sample from the Yakima River Lower Delta,
2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in any sample. OCDD was the most commonly found dioxin,
occurring in 60% of samples, while HpCDD was detected in 19% of samples. The highest
concentrations for both HpCDD and OCDD were found in a single sample taken from above
Priest Rapids Dam. This location was also the sole occurrence for the polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
furans HpCDF and OCDF.
7. The widespread presence of several PBDEs, and especially the more highly toxic lower
brominated PBDE congeners, at |ig/kg quantities in nearly 60 percent of the sediment samples
evokes concern. Rayne et al (2003) have reported that for the period from 1992-2000, total
PBDE levels in mountain whitefish from the Columbia River have increased by a factor of
twelve, with a doubling period of 1.6 years. In addition to the greater ecotoxicity of the tetra and
penta brominated congeners, PBDE compounds in aquatic environments are increasingly being
linked to undesirable chronic ecotoxicological endpoints such as endocrine disruption,
developmental and reproductive effects. (McDonald, 2002, Legler and Brouwer, 2003, Vos, et
al., 2003). In studies of laboratory rodents, PBDEs have been associated with neuro-
developmental toxicity (Viberg et al, 2003, Birnbaum and Staskal, 2004).
22
-------
8. Although most of the sampling efforts here focused upon sediments along the main-stem
Columbia, it is important to bear in mind the importance of the greater network of major
tributary streams which serve as primary sources for the loading and biogeocycling of Columbia
Basin contaminants. In future studies, more attention should be paid to sediment uptake and
loading within these major tributaries (i.e., Snake, Walla Walla, Yakima Rivers, etc.). The
Yakima Lower Delta, for example, had samples containing the highest sediment concentrations
for mercury, cadmium, zinc, and nickel. With such a small number of samples, it is difficult to
know whether this spatial pattern is consistent. But even in this preliminary investigation, these
findings are a reason to focus future studies on investigating why these elevated metal are
reflective of this predominantly agricultural drainage area.
9. It is also recommended that for organic compounds, future studies of sediment-borne
contaminants in the mid-Columbia Basin go beyond their traditional focus on legacy
organochlorines like DDTs and PCBs. Instead, increased attention should be paid to some of the
emerging, new classes of contaminants in water (Kolpin, et al., 2002). This should, of course,
include a continued monitoring effort for PBDEs. More emphasis also needs to be placed on
certain currently used pesticides, especially the organophosphates such as Azinphos-methyl.
10. Future studies should also include pesticides and herbicides such as Glyphosate, which is
associated with aquatic toxicity and— despite its reputation as being a non-persistent compound -
- is being detected in urban streams in the US (Kolpin, et al., 2006). Glyphosate was recently
detected in a small urban tributary associated with Portland, Oregon's Clackamas River drainage,
Lower Columbia Basin (Carpenter, 2007).
11. More attention should also be paid to the potential of impacts from pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (Daughton & Ternes, 1999), as well as chemical and microbiological
contaminants from municipal and agricultural waste sources (Tallon, et al., 2005). This would
also include municipal sewage. However, consideration should also be extended to large
confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are also emerging as important sources for
non-traditional chemical and microbiological contaminants with the potential to impact surface
water and ground water (Orlando, et al., 2004).
23
-------
5.0 References Cited
Baxter, R. 2003. Walla Walla District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla. Personal
communication on February 11, 2003.
Beak Consultants, Inc. 1989. Columbia River fish study: fish collection, fish tissue sampling
and age offish sampled. Prepared for Northwest Pulp & Paper Association. Beak Consultants,
Inc., Portland, OR.
Birnbaum LS, and DF Staskal. 2004. Brominated flame retardants: cause for concern? Environ
Health Perspect 112: 9-17.
Carpenter, K. 2007. Pesticides in streams of the lower Clackamas River Basin, Oregon, 2000-
05. IN: "Science to Policy: Many Perspectives, One River". A symposium co-sponsored by
the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Red Lion Inn at the Quay, Vancouver, Washington. May 7-9, 2007.
Darnerud, PO, GS Eriksen, T Johannesson, PB Larsen, and M Viluksela. 2001. Polybrominated
diphenyl ethers: Occurrence, dietary exposure and toxicology. Environmental Health
Perspectives Supplements 109(81): 49-68.
Daughton, CG, and TA Ternes. 1999. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the
environment: agents of subtle change? Environmental Health Perspectives Suppl 107(6): 907-
938.
DethloffG, TMBartish, DE Tillitt, VS Blazer, ND Denslow, CJ Schmitt, and JJ Coyle.
2001. Health and reproductive indicators and contaminant concentrations in fish from the Rio
Grande and Columbia River Basins. USGS Poster at 2001 SET AC Conference.
Embry, SS and EK Block. 1995. Reconnaissance investigation of water quality, bottom
sediments, and biota associated with irrigation drainage in the Columbia Basin project,
Washington, 1991-92. USGS Water-Resources Invest. Rep. 95-4007. 144pp.
Federal Register. 2004. Certain polybrominated diphenylethers; proposed significant new use
rule. 69(233): 70404-70412. December 6.
Gruber, SJ, and MD Munn. 1996. Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in aquatic ecosystems of
the Central Columbia Plateau: US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 170-96. 4 p.
Hale, RC, MJ LaGuardia, EP Harvey, TM Mainor, and WH Duff. 2001. Polybrominated
diphenyl ether flame retardants in Virginia freshwater fishes (USA). Environ Sci Technol
35(23): 4585-4591.
Hayslip, GL. L Edmond, V Partridge, W Nelson, H Hee, F Cole, J Lamberson, and L Caton.
2007. Ecological condition of the Columbia River Estuary. EPA 910-R-07-004. U.S.
24
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Assessment, Region 10. 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Johnson, A, D Norton, and W Yake. 1986. Occurrence and significance of DDT compounds
and other contaminants in fish, water and sediment from the Yakima River Basin. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Johnson, A, D Norton, and B Yake. 1988(a). Persistence of DDT in the Yakima River
drainage, Washington. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 17:289-297.
Johnson, A, D Norton, and W Yake. 1988(b) (revised 1989). An assessment of metals
contamination in Lake Roosevelt. Washington Department of Ecology, Toxics Investigations
/Ground Water Monitoring Section, Olympia, WA.
Johnson A, and M Heffner. 1993. Class II inspection of the Boise Cascade Pulp & Paper Mill,
Wallula, Washington. April, 1992. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental
Investigations and Laboratory Services Program, Olympia, WA.
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 State Department of Ecology (WDOE) Publication 06-03-027. 59 p. August.
Kolpin, DW, ET Furlong, MT Meyer, EM Thurman, SD Zaugg, LB Barber, and HT Buxton.
2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US Streams,
1999-2000: A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science & Technology 36(6): 1202-
1211.
Kolpin, DW, EM Thurman, EA Lee, MT Meyer, ET Furlong, and ST Glassmeyer. 2006. Urban
contributions of glyphosate and its degradate AMPA to streams in the United States. Science of
the Total Environment 54(2-3): 191-197.
Legler, J, and A Brouwer. 2003. Are brominated flame retardants endocrine disrupters?
Environment International 29 6): 879-885. September.
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP). 2007. Lower Columbia River and Estuary
Ecosystem Monitoring: Water quality and salmon sampling report. 70 p. LCREP, 811 SW
Naito Parkway, Suite 120. Portland, Oregon, 97204.
MacDonald, DD, CG Ingersoll, and TA Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of
consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam
Toxicol 39: 20 -31.
Majewski, ML, SC Kahle, JC Ebbert, and EG Josberger. 2003. Concentrations and distribution
of slag-related trace elements and mercury in fine-grained beach and bed sediments of Lake
25
-------
Roosevelt, Washington, April-May 2001. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 03-4170. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
McDonald, TA, 2002. A perspective on the potential health risks of PBDEs. Chemosphere
46(5): 745-755.
Normandeau Associates Environmental Consultants. 2000. An evaluation of water quality and
limnology for the Priest Rapids project area. Completion Report for Grant County PUD. R-
181102.000 55 pp. plus 9 appendices.
North, JA, RC Beamesderfer, and TA Rien. 1993. Distribution and movements of white
sturgeon in three Lower Columbia River reservoirs. NW Sci. 67(2): 105-111.
Pock. J.D. 2003. Grant County PUD, Ephrata, WA. Personal communication on March 25,
2003.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2007. Guidance for assessing
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern in sediment. Oregon DEQ, Environmental Cleanup
Program, Salem, OR, USA. January 31. Updated April 3, 2007.
Orlando, EF, AS Kolok, GA Binzcik, JL Gates, MK Horton, CS Lambright, LE Gray, Jr., AM
Soto, LJ Guilette, Jr. 2004. Endocrine-disrupting effects of cattle feedlot effluent on an aquatic
sentinel species, the fathead minnow. Environ Health Perspect 112(3): 353-358.
Pock, JD. 2003. Grant County PUD, Ephrata, WA. Personal communication, March 25, 2003.
Rayne, S, MG Ikonomou, and B Antcliffe. 2003. Rapidly increasing polybrominated diphenyl
ether concentrations in the Columbia River System from 1992 to 2000. Environ Sci Technol
37(13): 2847-2854.
Rice, KC. 1999. Trace-element concentrations in streambed sediment across the coterminous
United States. Environ Sci Technol 33: 2499-2504.
Rinella JF, SW McKenzie, JK Crawford, WT Foreman, PM Gates, GJ Fuhrer, and ML Janet.
1992. Surface-water-quality assessment of the Yakima River Basin, Washington: pesticide and
other trace-organic-compound data for water, sediment, soil, and aquatic biota, 1987 -91.
Rinella, JF, SW McKenzie, JK Crawford, WT Foreman, GJ Fuhrer, and JL Moracel. 1999.
Surface-water-quality assessment of the Yakima River Basin, Washington. USGS Water-Supply
Paper 2354-B. 180 pp. US Geological Survey, Portland, OR.
26
-------
Schecter, A, O Papke, KC Tung, J Joseph, TR Harris, and J Dahlgren. 2005. Polybrominated
diphenyl ether flame retardants in the US population: Current levels, temporal trends, and
comparison with dioxins, dibenzofurans, and polychlorinated biphenyls. JOEM 47(3): 199-211.
Seiders, K, C Deligeannis, and P Sandvik, 2007. Washington State Toxics Monitoring Program:
Contaminants in fish tissue from freshwater environments in 2004 and 2005. Environmental
Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 07-03-024.
Olympia, Washington 98504-7710. 35 p. June.
Tallon, P, B Magajna, C Lofranco, and KT Leung. 2005. Microbial indicators of faecal
contamination in water: A current perspective. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 166(1-4): 139-166.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Dredged material evaluation and disposal procedures. A
users manual for the Puget Sound dredged disposal analysis (PSDDA) program. Seattle District.
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/Attachments/UMPDF.pdf
US Department of Energy. 2006. Columbia River Component Data Evaluation Summary
Report (WCH-91). River Corridor Closure Contract. Prepared by Washington Closure Hanford,
for the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, WA. July.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey,
1996-1998. EPA910/R-02-006. 246pp. USEPA Region 10, Office of Environmental
Assessment, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. July 2002.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Quality Assurance Sampling Plan for a Mid-
Columbia River Basin Sediment Reconnaissance, November 13, 2003. Region 10 Office of
Environmental Assessment (OEA)1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. Addendum, Quality Assurance and Sampling Plan
for the Mid-Columbia River Basin Sediment Chemical Contaminants Study, October 2004.
Region 10 Office of Environmental Assessment (OEA) 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA
98101.
Viberg, H, A Fredriksson, E Jakobsson, U Orn, and P Eriksson. 2003. Neurobehavioral
derangements in adult mice receiving decabrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE 209) during a
defined period of neonatal brain development. Toxicological Sciences 76: 112-120.
Vos, JG, G Becher, M Van den Berg, J de Boer, and PEG Leonards. 2003. Brominated flame
retardants and endocrine disruption. Pure Appl Chem 75(11-12): 2039 -2046.
Williamson, AK, MD Munn, SJRyker, RJ Wagner, JC Ebbert, and AM Vanderpool. 1998.
Water quality in the Central Columbia Plateau, Washington and Idaho, 1992-95. US Geological
Survey Circular 1144. 35 pp. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Central
Columbia Plateau Study Unit, 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600, Tacoma, WA 98402.
27
-------
Table 1. Sample Locations, Mid-Columbia Sediments
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
Sample ID
04444208
04444209
04444210
04444202
04444203
04444204
04444205
04444206
04434247
04434246
04434245
04434239
04434238
04444201
04434237
04434236
04434235
04434234
04434241
04434230
04434242
04434243
04434231
04434244
04434233
04424225
04424220
04424224
04424226
04424227
04414205
04414206
04414207
04424217
Latitude
46.94058963
46.92925277
46.90551399
46.81835384
46.7108687
46.68004984
46.65910259
46.65912389
46.63644396
46.67646044
46.63534018
46.59575489
46.52974041
46.5048894
46.37747764
46.357326
46.34988915
46.29557711
46.26719212
46.25831301
46.25411761
46.25207188
46.25125087
46.24814362
46.24237381
46.21255173
46.20432355
46.20717192
46.19419239
46.19278552
46.25332296
46.27540271
46.27095811
46.19302302
Longitude
-119.9829414
-119.9568703
-119.987497
-119.9178648
-119.973006
-119.9545718
-119.9428758
-119.9120338
-119.7898294
-119.4529796
-119.4152388
-119.391293
-119.2781853
-119.2609968
-119.2634028
-119.2588186
-119.2662515
-119.2668859
-119.2584143
-119.2391699
-119.2502455
-119.2511739
-119.2316026
-119.2360573
-119.2203466
-119.0990141
-119.0521924
-119.0586764
-119.0516506
-119.0504232
-118.8512999
-118.8397484
-118.8281222
-119.0226416
Sample date
28-Oct-04
28-Oct-04
28-Oct-04
26-Oct-04
26-Oct-04
27-Oct-04
27-Oct-04
27-Oct-04
22-Oct-04
21-Oct-04
21-Oct-04
19-Oct-04
19-Oct-04
26-Oct-04
18-Oct-04
18-Oct-04
18-Oct-04
18-Oct-04
20-Oct-04
17-Oct-04
20-Oct-04
20-Oct-04
17-Oct-04
20-Oct-04
17-Oct-04
16-Oct-04
16-Oct-04
16-Oct-04
16-Oct-04
16-Oct-04
06-Oct-04
06-Oct-04
06-Oct-04
15-Oct-04
Location
above Wanapum dam, near Vantage
Sand Hollow
above Wanapum dam
Lower Crab Creek
across from Desert Aire
above Priest Rapids dam
above Priest Rapids dam
above Priest Rapids dam
Mattawa drain
Wahluke branch 10
Hanford 100F
Hanford slough
Wahluke branch 5
spoils bank
Potholes canal
Ezquatzel
Hanford 300
below Richland STP
below W. Richland STP
Yakima River above delta
Yakima River below 240 bridge
Yakima River below 240 bridge
Yakima River lower delta
Yakima River below 240 bridge
Yakima River below lower delta
below Port of Kennewick
below Pasco STP
below Pasco STP
Twin Rivers Park
Twin Rivers Park
Snake River, above Ice Harbor dam
Snake River, above Ice Harbor dam
Snake River, above Ice Harbor dam
Snake River lower delta
-------
Table 1, Continued
Station ID
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32a
32b
33
Sample ID
04424218
04424216
04414213
04424215
04414210
04414211
04414212
04414209
04414202
04414203
04414200
Latitude
46.198714
46.18668442
46.16300774
46.18218097
46.06787005
46.07249586
46.07811736
46.06245777
45.93144879
45.93348958
45.94669649
Longitude
-119.0278058
-119.0172298
-119.0125559
-119.0131914
-118.9306041
-118.9290732
-118.9240594
-118.9196566
-119.2606112
-119.2616927
-119.274646
Sample date
15-Oct-04
15-Oct-04
07-Oct-04
15-Oct-04
07-Oct-04
07-Oct-04
07-Oct-04
07-Oct-04
05-Oct-04
05-Oct-04
05-Oct-04
Location
Snake River lower delta
Burbank bankwater
below Kennewick industrial area
below Kennewick industrial area
below Boise-Cascade outfall
below Boise-Cascade outfall
below Boise-Cascade outfall
Walla Walla River lower delta
Hat Rock Park
Hat Rock Park
above McNary dam
-------
Table 2. Target Compounds, Number of Samples, Analytical Laboratories, Methods, and Reporting Limits
Group
Metals
Organochlorine Pesticides
Herbicides and Fungicides
Organophosphate Pesticides
Carbamate Pesticides
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polybrominated Dipheyl
Ethers
Analyte
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
See footnote #5
See footnote #6
See footnote #7
Alachlor and Simazine
Atrazine and Trifluralin
Azinphos-methyl; Chlorpyrifos-
ethyl; and Diazinon
Parathion-methyl; Malathion
Carbaryl
Aroclors
BDE28, 49, 99, 100, 153, 154,
183, and 209
# Samples (1)
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
44
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
44
45
Lab
MEL (2)
MEL
MEL
MEL
MEL
MEL
MEL
MEL
A4 Scientific (3)
MEL
MEL
MEL
MEL
MEL
MEL
MEL
A4 Scientific
MEL
Reporting Limit
4.5 mg/kg
0.5 mg/kg
0.5 mg/kg
0.4 mg/kg
3 me/ke
0.042 mg/kg
1 mg/kg
0.4 mg/kg
0. lug/kg
8ug/kg
20ug/kg
5ug/kg
2ug/kg
5ug/kg
2ug/kg
2ug/kg
2ug/kg
0.5 ug/kg
Method
200.7/6010
200.7/6010
200.7/6010
200.7/6010
200.7/6010
245.5
200.7/6010
200.7/6010
8081
8270C (Methoxychlor)
515.1/8151A
8270C
Modified 8270C
Modified 8270C
Modified 8270C
Modified 8270C
Modified 8270C
8082
8270C
-------
Table 2, Continued
Group
Polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins and
Polychlorinated
dibenzofurans
Total Organic Carbon
Analyte
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD; 1,2,3,7,8,9-
HxCDD; 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF;
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF; 2,3,4,6,7,8-
HxCDF; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDF;l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDF
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,4,7,8-
HxCDF; 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
NA
# Samples (1)
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
All samples
Lab
EPA Region 7 (4)
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7 /MEL
Reporting Limit
0.005 pg/g
0.05 pg/g
0.02 pg/g
0.03 pg/g
0.08 pg/g
0.12 pg/g
0.006 pg/g
0.01 pg/g
0.01%
Method
1613B
1613B
1613B
1613B
1613B
1613B
1613B
1613B
PSEP- Plumb 1981
1. Analytes with 44 samples had one sample disqualified due to breakage during shipment.
2. MEL: USEPA Region 10 Manchester Environmental Laboratory, 7411 Beach Drive East, Port Orchard, Washington, USA 98366
3. A4 Scientific, 1544 Sawdust Road, Spring, Texas, USA
4. EPA Region 7 Environmental Laboratory, Environmental Services Division, 901 N. 5 Street, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
5. The following analytes were analyzed: 2,4-DDE; ODD; DDT; a-and g-Chlordane; Oxychlordane; cis-and trans-Nonachlors; Mirex; Hexachlorobutadiene;
Lindane, Hexachlorobenzene; Toxaphene; and Methoxychlor.
6. The following analytes were analyzed: Pentachlorophenol; 2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol; Bromoxynil; Chloramben; Clopyralid; Dicamba; 2,4-D; DCPA;,
Dichloroprop; loxynil; MCPA; MCPP; Picloram; Silvex; 2,4,5-T; Triclopyr
7. The following analytes were analyzed: 2,4,5-TCP; 2,4 6-TCP; 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol; 4-Nitrophenol; Acifluorfen; Bentazon; Dinoseb; 2,4-DB;
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid; Diclofop-methyl.
-------
Table 3: Geographic Comparisons of Metals Concentrations in Columbia Basin and Nationwide
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Study
Upper-Col (1)
Mid-Col. (2)
Lower Col. EMAP (3)
NAQWA (4)
Upper-Col
Mid-Col
Lower Col. EMAP
NAQWA
Upper-Col.
Mid-Col.
Lower Col. EMAP
NAQWA
Upper-Col.
Mid-Col.
Lower Col. EMAP
NAQWA
Upper-Col.
Mid-Col.
Lower Col. EMAP
NAQWA
Upper-Col.
Mid-Col.
Lower Col. EMAP
NAQWA
Upper-Col.
Mid-Col.
Lower Col. EMAP
NAQWA
N
5
45
77
541
5
45
77
541
5
45
77
541
5
45
77
541
5
45
77
541
5
45
77
541
5
45
77
541
Range, mg/kg
3.2-10
4.5-20
0.69-20.8
1-200
0.1-0.4
0.5-6.0
0.09-0.85
0.1-56
36-130
6.13-23
15.3-89.8
1.0-700
9-25
4.72-36.5
8.3-59
6-620
14-47
2.5-75.9
1.5-25.9
4.0 - 6300
0.01-0.07
0.04-0.167
0.0049 - 0.239
0.02-14.5
16-65
5.6-26.9
15.1-49.2
6-530
% Detects
100%
64%
95%
100%
60%
58%
84%
98%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
99%
100%
40%
99%
86%
100%
100%
100%
100%
MDL, mg/kg
NR
4.5
0.69
0.01
0.1
0.5
0.09
0.1
NR
0.5
15.3
1
NR
0.4
8.3
1
NR
2.5
1.5
4
NR
0.04
0.0049
0.02
NR
1
15.1
2
Treatment of
Nondetects
NR
!/2MDL
0
NA
NR
!/2MDL
0
!/2MDL
NR
NA
0
!/2MDL
NR
NA
0
NA
NR
!/2MDL
0
!/2MDL
NR
!/2MDL
0
!/2MDL
NR
NA
0
NA
Mean
NR
5.07
NR
NR
NR
1.09
NR
NR
NR
14.37
NR
NR
NR
17.1
NR
NR
NR
12.43
NR
NR
NR
0.04
NR
NR
NR
15.1
NR
NR
25th percentile
mg/kg
NR
4.8
1.9
4.6
NR
0.3
0.1
0.3
NR
12
26
51
NR
15.1
14.4
17
NR
8
7.6
18
NR
0.02
0.01
0.03
NR
13.1
21.4
20
50th
percentile
mg/kg
6.6
5.9
2.7
6.3
0.3
1.2
0.16
0.4
80
16.6
31.9
64
21
18.4
18.3
27
18
12.6
8.8
27
0.02
0.044
0.0197
0.06
31
17
26.6
27
75th
percentile
mg/kg
NR
7.6
3.9
9.2
NR
2.13
0.8
NR
19.3
84
84
NR
27.9
23
43
NR
22
11
44
NR
0.08
0.13
NR
21.7
33
36
-------
Table 3, Continued
Metal
Zinc
Study
N
Range, mg/kg
% Detects
MDL, mg/kg
Treatment
ofNondetects
Mean
25th
percentile
mg/kg
50th
percentile
mg/kg
75th
percentile
mg/kg
Upper-Col.
Mid-Col.
Lower Col. EMAP
NAQWA
5
45
77
541
53-130
25.8-558
54.8 - 147
4.0 - 9000
100%
100%
100%
99%
NR
0.4
54.8
4
NR
NA
0
!/2MDL
NR
143.24
NR
NR
NR
68.7
74
81
58
131
84
110
NR
305
86
180
1. Concentrations and Distribution of Slag-Related Trace Elements and Mercury in Fine-Grained Beach and Bed Sediments of Lake Roosevelt, Washington,
April-May 2001 (Majewski, et al, 2003)
2. Mid-Columbia Report (this report)
3. Lower Columbia Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Hayslip et al., 2008)
4. USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program (Rice, 1999).
MDL: Method Detection Limit NA: Not Applicable. NR: Not Reported
-------
Table 4: Comparison of Metal Concentrations with Ecological Guidelines in Mid-Columbia Sediments
Analyte
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
TEC (mg/kg) (1)
9.79
0.99
43.4
31.6
35.8
0.18
22.7
121
% samples > TEC
2% (1/45)
3 8% (17/45)
0%
2% (1/45)
2% (1/45)
0%
11% (5/45)
33% (15/45)
PEC (mg/kg) (2)
33
4.98
111
149
128
1.06
48.6
459
% samples > PEC
0%
2% (1/45)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2% (1/45)
1. Threshold Effect Concentrations (MacDonald, D.D., C.G Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger, 2000)
2. Probable Effect Concentrations (MacDonald, D.D., C.G Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger, 2000)
-------
Table 5. Metals Concentrations in mid-Columbia Sediments, mg/kg
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32a
32b
33
Sample #
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
4424217
4424218
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414202
4414203
4414200
mean concentration,
non-detects set to 1/2 MDL
As
4.5
4.4
5.1
5.9
4.9
4.8
7.6
7.6
4.5
4.6
20
6.8
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.5
5.3
6
6.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.8
4.8
4.5
5.1
4.5
5.7
8
8.9
4.5
4.5
4.5
7.2
7.4
6.3
5.1
5.7
4.6
7.1
9.6
5.5
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
5.07
Cr
9
9.5
8.3
10.3
12.4
10.1
15
23
11.3
16.9
16.4
17.9
13.4
11.6
14.6
7.9
15.8
17.2
16.3
18
20.1
19.6
17.8
18.7
14.9
18.7
18.3
14.2
21.5
16.1
8.66
15.3
16.6
6.13
10.9
10.3
14.4
14
13
10.5
12.8
10.6
14.3
21.3
13.1
14.37
Cd
1.2
0.49
0.64
0.49
1.61
0.53
2.93
4.21
0.5
0.5
1.2
3.84
0.6
0.5
0.98
0.5
2.54
1.4
2.26
5.96
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.63
1.4
0.64
1.3
1.2
2.11
0.5
0.62
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.95
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.4
2.13
0.62
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1.09
Cu
17.3
16.8
18.4
12.8
18.3
15.4
27.1
36.5
16.4
18.2
31.5
27.6
14.8
11.3
18.4
13.1
18.7
21.9
18.7
28.4
14
14.3
17.8
12.6
12.2
22.3
14.1
9.87
21.1
17.5
7.54
18.9
17.5
4.72
5.94
7.02
30
13
14
11.9
16
10.8
15.1
29.2
10.6
17.10
Hg
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.044
0.051
0.04
0.09
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.096
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.051
0.04
0.055
0.1668
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.057
0.04
0.04
0.043
0.054
0.04
0.055
0.044
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.147
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.046
0.088
0.04
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0.04
Pb
13.2
4.8
9.4
3.4
12
8.8
23.8
29.4
4.6
12
75.9
32.2
6.4
7.5
9.6
4.1
18.5
22.8
22
26.7
5.6
5.4
10
4.9
8
15.4
7.8
7.8
12
12.6
4.3
9
9.9
2.5
3.3
3
15.1
6.8
7.7
6.2
7.9
5.8
11
19.5
12
qual.
U
12.43
Ni
9.76
10.8
11.5
11.4
13.1
10.2
16.6
26.7
9.37
14.6
15.1
18.3
12.9
11.5
14.2
8.44
17
16.2
14.9
21.5
24.04
26.6
23.49
26.9
20.3
21.7
17.6
13.9
24.5
19.5
8.95
13.78
13.9
5.56
8.62
8.87
18
12.8
11.3
9.23
10.9
8.91
13.4
20.9
11.7
15.10
Zn
149
42.3
111
38.1
178
104
346
428
41.8
94.2
402
444
66
68.7
102
45
305
209
339
558
58.8
54.6
91.9
52.6
117
195
94.8
124
163
241
38.3
53.8
58.7
25.8
33.2
34.7
247
51.2
58
48.7
57.3
46.2
120
178
131
143.24
-------
Table 6. Concentrations of Detected Organic Compounds Compared to Ecological and Human Health Guidelines (1)
Chemical
Total DDTs
Sum ODD (5)
Sum DDE (5)
Sum DDT (5)
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Chlordane
Lindane
OCDD
HpCDD
OCDF
HpCDF
TCDF
TEC (ug/kg) (2)
5.3
4.9
3.2
4.2
NA
NA
59.8
3.24
2.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
% samples >
TEC
0%
0%
0%
0%
NA
NA
0%
0%
0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PEC (ug/kg) (3)
572
28
31.3
62.9
NA
NA
676
17.6
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
% samples > PEC
0%
0%
0%
0%
NA
NA
0%
0%
0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bioaccumulative SLV
(ug/kg) (4)
0.04-0.3
NA
NA
NA
2.3-19
30-250
0.048-0.39
NA
NA
2800 - 23,000 ng/kg
85 - 690 ng/kg
2800 - 23,000 ng/kg
85 - 690 ng/kg
0.09- 0.8 ng/kg
% samples > SLV
64% detected
samples
NA
NA
NA
0%
0%
0%
NA
NA
0%
2%
0%
0%
2%
1. Several compounds were detected in the study but do not have PEC, TEC, or Bioaccumulative Screening Level Values. These include:
Azinphos-methyl; Ethyl chlorpyrifos; Malathion; Dacthal; Tetrachlorophenol; and the Polybrominated diphenyl ethers.
2. TEC: Threshold Effects Concentrations from "Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater
Ecosystems", MacDonald, D.D., C.G Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger, 2000
3. PEC: Probable Effect Concentrations from "Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater
Ecosystems", MacDonald, D.D., C.G Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger, 2000
4. Bioaccumulative Screening Level Values from "Guidance for Assessing Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern in Sediment", Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Cleanup Program, Final January 31, 2007, updated April 3, 2007. Lower value based on fish
consumption of 142 grams/day and higher value based on fish consumption of 17.5 grams/day
5. Assumes Sum DDD = P,p' DDD. Assumes Sum DDE = P,p' DDE. Assumes Sum DDT = P,p' DDT. This was assumed because generally
the majority the DDTs are comprised of P,p' DDD, P,p' DDE, or P,p' DDT,
NA: Not available
-------
Table 7. Organochlorine pesticides, ug/kg
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
Sample
ID
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
P,F-
DDD
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
0.23
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
0.32
0.73
0.7
0.2
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
0.25
1.6
1.6
0.15
0.17
1.3
1.8
0.25
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
J
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
J
J
U
U
J
O.P1-
DDD
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
P.P1-
DDE
2
1.5
0.21
1.7
0.24
0.31
2.3
0.67
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
0.9
1.8
0.48
0.45
0.55
0.41
0.38
0.22
0.21
0.58
1.6
0.18
0.36
0.37
1.3
0.41
1.6
qual.
U
U
J
U
J
J
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
J
J
J
U
J
J
O.P1-
DDE
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
P.P1-
DDT
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
0.53
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
0.88
2.6
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
0.6
0.54
2.8
1.3
1.8
0.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
J
J
U
U
J
O.P1-
DDT
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
alpha-
Chlordane
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
garnrna-
Chlordane
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
CIS-
Nonachlor
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Mirex
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Hexachloro-
butadlene
10
7.4
7.3
8.5
13
8.4
12
13
7.7
9.2
7.8
19
7.8
7.6
8.9
7
9.2
9.1
8.1
8.9
7.8
8
9.3
8.3
7.3
11
7.8
7.8
8.6
8.9
6.6
8.8
8.3
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Llndane
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Hexachloro-
benzene
0.24
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
0.13
0.21
qual.
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
J
Toxaphene
100
74
73
85
130
84
120
130
77
92
78
190
78
76
89
70
92
91
81
89
78
80
93
83
73
110
78
78
86
89
66
88
83
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Methoxychlor
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
Table 7, Continued
Station ID
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32
33
Sample
ID
4424217
4424218
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414203
4414200
P,F-
DDD
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
0.13
0.26
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
J
U
U
U
O.P1-
DDD
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
P.P1-
DDE
1.4
0.14
1.4
0.14
0.11
0.55
0.59
0.78
0.27
0.25
0.2
qual.
U
J
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
O.P1-
DDE
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
P.P1-
DDT
1.4
0.21
1.4
1.6
1.6
0.15
0.13
0.86
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
J
U
U
U
J
J
J
U
U
U
O.P1-
DDT
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
alpha-
Chlordane
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
garnrna-
Chlordane
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
cis-
Nonachlor
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Mlrex
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Hexachloro-
butadlene
7
7
7.1
7.7
8.2
8.3
9
8.5
8.2
11
6.9
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Llndane
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Hexachloro-
benzene
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
0.11
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
Toxaphene
70
70
71
77
82
83
90
85
82
110
69
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Methoxychlor
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
number of
samples
with detected
concentrations
11
0
27
0
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
-------
Table 8. Organophosphate pesticides and carbaryl, ug/kg
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32a
32b
33
Sample #
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
4424217
4424218
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414202
4414203
4414200
Azinphos-
methyl
4
2
2
7
7
17
47
5
6
9
7
5
6
9
11
6
8
8
7
6
2
7
8
7
6
47
6
32
50
41
20
28
30
6
70
5
32
7
25
25
28
24
24
41
22
U
U
U
U
U
J
UJ
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Chlorpyrifos,
ethyl
12
9
2
9
7
7
7
118
9
7
7
6
9
3
6
8
8
6
11
8
7
3
6
7
8
6
70
6
9
10
3
2
2
5
6
7
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
U
U
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
J
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Diazinon
12
4
2
9
7
7
7
47
9
7
7
6
9
6
6
8
8
6
5
16
7
6
6
7
8
13
70
6
19
20
16
8
11
5
6
7
11
13
10
10
10
12
9
10
6
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Malathion
12
2
1
4
3
3
3
24
3
3
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
2
16
3
6
3
3
3
13
28
2
19
20
16
8
11
2
2
3
11
13
10
10
10
12
9
10
12
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
JL
UJ
UJ
JL
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
JL
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Parathion-
methyl
4
2
12
3
3
3
47
24
3
3
3
5
2
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
11
3
3
3
2
9
2
6
10
8
20
28
30
2
28
2
32
3
25
25
28
24
24
41
22
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Carbaryl
19
12
12
7
7
3
no data
24
3
3
7
23
2
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
11
7
3
7
2
9
2
6
10
8
20
28
30
2
28
2
1
3
25
25
28
24
24
41
22
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
Table 9. Herbicides and fungicides, ug/kg
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32a
32b
33
Sample #
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
4424217
4424218
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414202
4414203
4414200
2,4-D
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2,4-DB
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
15
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2,4,5-T
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Silvex
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MCPA
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MCPP
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
3,5-Dichloro-
benzoic acid
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
5
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Acifluorfen
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
10
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Alachlor
9
6
6
7
7
7
118
12
6
9
7
11
6
9
9
6
8
8
7
6
6
7
8
7
6
9
6
6
10
8
8
11
12
6
70
5
13
7
10
10
11
10
10
16
9
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Atrazine
2
1
2
3
3
3
24
5
3
3
no data
2
2
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
9
2
6
10
8
1
1
1
2
28
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Bentazon
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
10
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Bromoxynil
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Chloramben
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
10
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Clopyralid
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DCPA
(Dacthal)
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
0.32
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
Dicamba
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Dichlorprop
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
Table 9, Continued
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32a
32b
33
Sample #
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
4424217
4424218
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414202
4414203
4414200
Diclofop,
Methyl
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
5
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Dinoseb
75
48
48
180
84
55
92
95
24
45
28
42
26
44
32
22
29
31
32
10
25
26
31
37
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
loxynil
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Picloram
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
13
11
17
10
22
13
8.8
18
12
11
5
25
11
12
32
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Simazine
4
2
6
7
7
7
47
12
6
9
7
5
6
9
9
6
8
8
7
6
6
7
8
7
6
9
6
6
10
8
8
11
12
6
70
5
3
7
10
10
11
10
10
16
9
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Trichlorpyr
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
18
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Trifluralin
2
1
1
3
3
3
24
2
3
3
3
2
2
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
2
9
2
6
10
8
20
28
30
2
28
2
32
3
25
25
28
24
24
41
22
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2,4,5-
TCP
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
5
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2,4,6-
TCP
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
5
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2,3,4,5-
TeCP
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
2.7
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
8.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2,3,4,6-
TeCP
37
24
24
30
42
28
2.3
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
5
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCP
15
9.6
9.7
12
17
11
40
19
9.5
13
11
17
10
8.8
13
8.8
12
12
11
5
10
11
12
11
8.9
14
9.6
9
14
12
8.7
12
13
8.5
8.5
7.3
14
11
3.1
9.8
10
9.3
9.5
17
9.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
4-Nitro-
phenol
37
24
24
30
42
28
46
47
24
32
28
42
26
22
32
22
29
31
26
10
25
26
31
27
22
35
24
22
34
30
22
31
32
21
21
18
34
28
20
25
25
23
24
42
24
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
Table 10. PCB Aroclors, ug/kg
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
Sample #
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
4424217
PCB-1016
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1221
10
7.4
7.3
8.5
13
8.4
12
13
7.7
9.2
7.8
19
7.8
7.6
8.9
7
9.2
9.1
8.1
8.9
7.8
8
9.3
8.3
7.3
11
7.8
7.8
8.6
8.9
6.6
8.8
8.3
7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1232
10
7.4
7.3
8.5
13
8.4
12
13
7.7
9.2
7.8
19
7.8
7.6
8.9
7
9.2
9.1
8.1
8.9
7.8
8
9.3
8.3
7.3
11
7.8
7.8
8.6
8.9
6.6
8.8
8.3
7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1242
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1248
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1254
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1260
2
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
Table 10, Continued
Station ID
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32b
33
Sample #
4424218
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414203
4414200
PCB-1016
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1221
7
7.1
7.7
8.2
8.3
9
8.5
8.2
11
6.9
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1232
7
7.1
7.7
8.2
8.3
9
8.5
8.2
11
6.9
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1242
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1248
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1254
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PCB-1260
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
Table 11. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, ng/kg
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32a
32b
33
Sample #
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
4424217
4424218
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414202
4414203
4414200
12346789-
OCDD
83.5
15.1
32.4
10.6
135
9.94
1010
40.8
9.84
9.88
9.71
12.1
9.85
78.9
11.8
18.7
14.9
15.3
43.7
28.7
30.5
25.3
52.4
19.7
13.4
28.4
20.5
26.9
16.8
28.2
18.2
30.6
82
12
9.86
125
98.7
61.7
50.5
29.5
26.4
337
93.7
34.7
78.7
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1234678-
HpCDD
5.06
4.68
4.9
4.88
14.2
4.97
91.5
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
5.37
4.72
5.01
4.88
5.31
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
7.57
4.93
4.93
14.5
9.59
5.01
5.54
4.94
4.95
31.3
6.78
4.98
26.1
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
123478-
HxCDD
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
123678-
HxCDD
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
123789-
HxCDD
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
U
UJ
UJ
U
UJ
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
234678-
HxCDD
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
12378-
PCDD
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2378-
TCDD
0.955
0.936
0.979
0.977
0.989
0.994
0.989
0.989
0.984
0.988
0.971
0.977
0.985
0.949
0.994
0.962
0.993
0.979
0.992
0.944
1
0.976
0.979
0.991
0.985
0.996
0.99
0.986
0.975
1.01
0.969
0.996
0.989
0.986
0.986
0.999
0.997
1
0.98
0.987
0.989
0.973
0.978
0.996
0.993
qual.
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
U
UJ
UJ
U
UJ
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
12346789-
OCDF
9.55
9.36
9.79
9.77
9.89
9.94
39.4
9.89
9.84
9.88
9.71
9.77
9.85
9.49
9.94
9.62
9.93
9.79
9.92
9.44
10
9.76
9.79
9.91
9.85
9.96
9.9
9.86
9.75
10.1
9.69
9.96
9.89
9.86
9.86
9.99
9.97
10
9.8
9.87
9.89
13.6
12.2
9.96
9.93
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
Table 11, Continued
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32a
32b
33
Sample #
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
4424217
4424218
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414202
4414203
4414200
1234678-
HpCDF
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
5.67
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1234789-
HpCDF
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
123478-
HxCDF
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
123678-
HxCDF
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
123789-
HxCDF
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
12378-
PCDF
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
23478-
PCDF
4.78
4.68
4.9
4.88
4.95
4.97
4.95
4.95
4.92
4.94
4.85
4.88
4.93
4.74
4.97
4.81
4.97
4.9
4.96
4.72
5.01
4.88
4.9
4.96
4.93
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.87
5.04
4.84
4.98
4.95
4.93
4.93
5
4.99
5.01
4.9
4.94
4.95
4.86
4.89
4.98
4.97
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2378-
TCDF
0.955
0.936
0.979
0.977
0.989
0.994
0.989
0.989
0.984
0.988
0.971
0.977
0.985
0.949
0.994
0.962
0.993
0.979
0.992
1.09
1
0.976
0.979
0.991
0.985
0.996
0.99
0.986
0.975
1.01
0.969
0.996
0.989
0.986
0.986
0.999
0.997
1
0.98
0.987
0.989
0.973
1.02
0.996
0.993
qual.
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
U
UJ
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
-------
Table 12. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDE), ug/kg
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19a
19b
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
25a
25b
26a
26b
26c
27a
27b
Sample #
4444208
4444209
4444210
4444202
4444203
4444204
4444205
4444206
4434247
4434246
4434245
4434239
4434238
4444201
4434237
4434236
4434235
4434234
4434241
4434230
4434242
4434243
4434231
4434244
4434233
4424225
4424220
4424224
4424226
4424227
4414205
4414206
4414207
4424217
4424218
PBDE# 28
0.036
0.58
0.58
0.74
0.031
0.69
1.2
0.045
0.59
0.79
0.67
1
0.63
0.56
0.6
0.56
0.74
0.76
0.65
0.63
0.013
0.63
0.039
0.66
0.54
0.13
0.58
0.48
0.058
0.053
0.55
0.8
0.78
0.54
0.52
qual.
J
U
U
U
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
J
U
J
U
U
J
U
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
PBDE# 47
0.68
0.082
0.26
0.74
0.28
0.69
0.33
0.43
0.59
0.79
0.67
0.14
0.63
0.14
0.6
0.56
0.18
0.18
0.14
0.2
0.31
0.36
0.34
0.29
0.13
1.2
0.58
0.48
0.41
0.4
0.55
0.8
0.78
0.54
0.52
qual.
J
J
J
U
J
U
J
J
U
U
U
J
U
J
U
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
PBDE# 99
0.27
0.58
0.13
0.74
0.16
0.69
0.19
0.21
0.59
0.79
0.67
0.04
0.63
0.092
0.6
0.56
0.12
0.14
0.097
0.63
0.076
0.084
0.18
0.094
0.096
0.34
0.58
0.48
0.12
0.2
0.55
0.8
0.78
0.54
0.52
qual.
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
J
U
U
U
J
U
J
U
U
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
PBDE#100
0.56
0.19
0.21
0.74
0.16
0.69
1.2
0.38
0.59
0.79
0.67
0.096
0.63
0.15
0.6
0.56
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.19
0.18
0.84
0.58
0.48
0.36
0.35
0.55
0.8
0.78
0.54
0.52
qual.
J
J
J
U
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
J
U
J
U
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
PBDE#153
0.19
0.58
0.58
0.74
1
0.69
1.2
1.1
0.59
0.79
0.67
1
0.63
0.56
0.6
0.56
0.74
0.76
0.65
0.63
0.59
0.12
0.082
0.66
0.54
0.12
0.58
0.48
0.073
0.1
0.55
0.8
0.78
0.54
0.52
qual.
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
J
J
U
U
J
U
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
PBDE#154
0.23
0.58
0.58
0.74
1
0.69
1.2
1.1
0.59
0.79
0.67
1
0.63
0.56
0.6
0.56
0.74
0.76
0.65
0.63
0.59
0.15
0.77
0.66
0.54
0.18
0.58
0.48
0.071
0.098
0.55
0.8
0.78
0.54
0.52
qual.
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
J
U
U
U
J
U
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
PBDE#183
0.9
0.58
0.58
0.74
1
0.69
1.2
1.1
0.59
0.79
0.67
1
0.63
0.56
0.6
0.56
0.74
0.76
0.65
0.63
0.59
0.63
0.77
0.66
0.54
0.87
0.58
0.48
0.81
0.77
0.55
0.8
0.78
0.54
0.52
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PBDE#209
45
29
29
37
51
35
58
57
30
39
34
52
31
28
30
28
37
38
32
32
29
32
39
33
27
43
29
24
40
39
27
40
39
27
26
qual.
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Sum of
estimated
PBDEs
1.966
0.272
0.6
none
0.631
none
0.52
1.065
none
none
none
0.276
none
0.382
none
none
0.46
0.48
0.367
0.35
0.599
0.964
0.941
0.574
0.406
2.81
none
none
1.092
1.201
none
none
none
none
none
-------
Table 12, Continued
Station ID
28
29a
29b
30a
30b
30c
31
32a
32b
33
Sample #
4424216
4414213
4424215
4414210
4414211
4414212
4414209
4414202
4414203
4414200
PBDE# 28
0.44
0.042
0.66
0.025
0.58
0.031
0.62
0.029
1.1
0.6
qual.
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
U
PBDE# 47
0.44
0.32
0.66
0.21
0.13
0.25
0.12
0.14
0.4
0.6
qual.
U
J
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
PBDE# 99
0.44
0.078
0.66
0.052
0.026
0.057
0.03
0.042
0.11
0.6
qual.
U
J
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
PBDE#100
0.44
0.2
0.66
0.16
0.084
0.2
0.1
0.14
0.36
0.6
qual.
U
J
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
PBDE#153
0.44
0.052
0.66
0.03
0.58
0.71
0.62
0.66
0.098
0.6
qual.
U
J
U
J
U
U
U
U
J
U
PBDE#154
0.44
0.086
0.66
0.037
0.58
0.71
0.62
0.66
0.087
0.6
qual.
U
J
U
J
U
U
U
U
J
U
PBDE#183
0.44
0.84
0.66
0.65
0.58
0.71
0.62
0.66
1.1
0.6
qual.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
PBDE#209
22
42
33
33
29
36
31
33
56
30
qual.
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Sum of
estimated
PBDEs
none
0.778
none
1.057
0.24
0.538
0.25
0.351
1.055
none
-------
Figure 1. Mid-Columbia region and sediment sampling sites
-------
Figure 2. Arsenic concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
45 i
10
upstream
15 20
station ID
25
PEC = 33 mg/kg
PEC = Probable effect
concentration
TEC = Threshold effect
concentration
MacDonald etal, 2000
TEC = 9.79
mg/kg
Snake River
Yakima River
^ Columbia main
stem
30 35
downstream
-------
Arsenic concentration, mg/kg
Figure 3. Arsenic data sorted by concentration
25
on
15
m
c.
n
»«»*
**»*•***
tt^*******»*^
»•••????•••?>»•»»•*
0)
j£
0)
E
•••
«
Figure 4. Arsenic concentration vs. per cent fines
R2 = 0.02
25
20
15
10
c.
n
* **J**t •' *****
w Ww ^ww w wU*v ^^ ™ v * ^ip1^
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Per cent fines
Rgure 5. Arsenic concentration vs. total organic carbon (TOC)
o5 R2 = 0.07
20
5
• 15
0) I0
E
- 10
-------
Figure 6. Arsenic geographic comparisons
25
20 +
15-
O)
c
01
1/1
10-
5-
\/
/\
A
I
\/
A
•
75th
percentile
median
25th
percentile
minimum
See Table 3 for
citations for
comparison
datasets.
mid-Columbia
lower Columbia (EMAP)
NAWQA
upper Columbia reference
-------
Figure 7. Cadmium concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
0 5
upstream
10
15 20
station ID
25
30
PEC = 4.98 mg/kg
PEC = Probable effect
concentration
TEC = Threshold effect
concentration
MacDonald etal, 2000
TEC = 0.99 mg/kg
Snake River
Yakima River
^ Columbia main
stem
35
downstream
-------
O)
.££
"5)
E
•o"
O
Figure 8. Cadmium data sorted by concentration
7
6
c.
A
0.
0
-1
n
*
*-**
A***^*^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*****
O)
E
•o
0
Figure 9. Cadmium concentration vs. per cent fines
7 R2 = 0.002
6
4
2
1
n
*
£ +
* A * *
+ ^ t +
* «** »M»«X»» ••••»• •*
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Per cent fines
E
•o
Figure 10. Cadmium concentration vs. total organic carbon (TOC)
R2 = 0.25
7
6
c.
A
0.
o
1
n
^ • * *
** F * *
£ ^^
4M««MM«1l» • »
012345
Total organic carbon, %
-------
Figure 11. Cadmium geographic comparisons
E
3
I
•c
ra
O
\/
A
•
maximum
75th
percentile
median
25th
percentile
minimum
T
\/
A
See Table 3 for
citations for
comparison
datasets.
mid-Columbia
lower Columbia (EMAP)
NAWQA
upper Columbia reference
-------
Figure 12. Chromium concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
150
100 -
O)
j*:
"01
E
il*
o
50
0 5
upstream
10
15 20
station ID
25
30
35
downstream
PEC = 111 mg/kg
PEC = Probable effect
concentration
TEC = Threshold effect
concentration
MacDonald etal, 2000
TEC = 43 mg/kg
Snake River
Yakima River
^ Columbia main
stem
-------
t
"5)
E
6
Figure 13. Chromium data sorted by concentration
OE:
on
IE:
m
EL
n
«*•*
«*»****
**+»*"*
^**~"~
^•«»**
*****
•
O>
"3)
E
O
Figure 14. Chromium concentration vs. per cent fines
R2 = 0.01
25
20
15 -
10 -
5
o
. X * **
* • 1\ *•
- ^ 4^ ^ £ A A
v A ^ ^
* * * * *
. • * • «* :
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Per cent fines
Rgure 15. Chromium concentration vs. total organic carbon (TOC)
R2 = 0.04
25 -i
20
O)
^10
O ^
o
\ **A £ * **
6 ^
^ "
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Total organic carbon, %
-------
Figure 16. Chromium geographic comparisons
140
120
100
01
I) 80
E"
3
E
| 60
o
40
D
NJ/
/\
•A
NJ/
/\
f
/ \
75th
percentile
median
25th
percentile
minimum
See Table 3 for
citations for
comparison
datasets.
mid-Columbia
lower Columbia (EMAP)
NAWQA
upper Columbia reference
-------
Figure 17. Copper concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
150
100
O)
j*:
"01
E
O
50
10
upstream
15 20
station ID
25
PEC = 149mg/kg
PEC = Probable effect
concentration
TEC = Threshold effect
concentration
MacDonald etal, 2000
TEC = 31.6 mg/kg
Snake River
Yakima River
Columbia main
stem
30 35
downstream
-------
O)
.££
"5)
d
Figure 18. Copper data sorted by concentration
40
"35
P5
on
15
10
n;
n
^
******
»**
. AA**
AA*****
*****^^
X*
Figure 19. Copper concentration vs. per cent fines
R2 = 0.06
4n
"35
"30
0) <5U
=£ 25
0) ^°
Eon
Z1U
-T 15
3 ia
0 10
G>
n
%
*
* * *
*****! » *»*,:*
* * * ,A* »~ * :
* * * *
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Per cent fines
Rgure 20. Copper concentration vs. total organic carbon (TOC)
R2 = 0.23
40
"35
"30
0) <5U
=£ 25
o. ^
Eon
Z1U
-T 15
3 1 3
0 10
c;
n
» »
* »» *
• * *
* v:^, * *
: A>** c ** *
/*
01 2345
Total organic carbon, %
-------
Figure 21. Copper geographic comparisons
70
60 --
40 +
v
Q.
Q.
O
o
20 --
10 --
N/
/\
\/
/\
•
mid-Columbia
lower Columbia (EMAP)
NAWQA
A
75th
percentile
median
25th
percentile
See Table 3 for
citations for
comparison
datasets.
upper Columbia reference
-------
Figure 22. Lead concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
150
100
O)
.cf
a.
10
upstream
15 20
station ID
25
PEC = 128mg/kg
PEC = Probable effect
concentration
TEC = Threshold effect
concentration
MacDonald etal, 2000
30 35
downstream
-------
t
"5)
E
.a"
0.
Figure 23. Lead data sorted by concentration
80
70
Rn
c.r\
40
•5n
on
m
n
•
X
******
^^^^
Rgure 24. Lead concentration vs. per cent fines
R2 = 0.0004
an
70
RO
0) DU
=£ 50
o. SU
E40
tu
_- -5n
°- on
m
n
•
* *
* % * *
**\ i.* ***• A
: ^^ ^»H*»*:** *»* $* 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Per cent fines
Rgure 25. Lead concentration vs. total organic carbon (TOC)
R2 = 0.16
80
70
RO
0) DU
=£ 50
o. SU
E40
tu
_- r>n
°- 00
m
n
•
>
* * * ***
* A*
**^» 4*» *
^;**w**«; * *
01 2345
Total organic carbon, %
-------
Figure 26. Lead geographic comparisons
80
70
60
50
O)
"01
E
T3
re
\|/
/\
D
/ \
maximum
75th
percentile
median
25th
percentile
minimum
30 --
20
10 --
\/
/\
*
mid-Columbia
D
\/
i
7
lower Columbia (EMAP)
NAWQA
.
See Table 3 for
citations for
comparison
datasets.
upper Columbia reference
-------
Figure 27. Mercury concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
O)
0.5
0.4
0.3 -
0.2
0.1
0 5
upstream
10
15 20
station ID
25
PEC = 1.06
PEC = Probable effect
concentration
TEC = Threshold effect
concentration
MacDonald et al, 2000
,TEC = 0.18mg/kg
Snake River
Yakima River
^ Columbia main
stem
30 35
downstream
-------
Figure 28. Mercury data sorted by concentration
n is
0 1fi
n 14
rn 0 1?
.*
_L n 1
0 08
O)
x n OR
n DA
n n?
n
s
»»
•
***
******
*A*
0 9
01^
0) U' ID
j^
1 01
t U. I
d>
1 0 05
o
C
Fi
n 9
0 1*1
a, U-I:D
"5)
En 1
U. I
d>
^ n nc;
n
Figure 29. Mercury concentration vs. per cent fines
R2 = 0.001
•
* * *
* \ * * A *
• ••• »*»••«»«»» •«• • «^C i
) 20 40 60 80 100 12
Per cent fines
gure 30. Mercury concentration vs. total organic carbon (TOC)
R2 = 0.2
•
* * *
»*A > «
«• •!•»•!! 4V ^ •• • •
D 1 2 3 4
Total organic carbon, %
3
9
5
-------
Figure 31. Mercury geographic comparisons
0.3
0.2
0.2
s
>; 0.15--
£
-------
Figure 32. Nickel concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
50
40-
30-
20-
10-
0 5
upstream
10
15
20
Station ID
25
30
downstream
PEC = 48.6 mg/kg
PEC = Probable effect
concentration
TEC = Threshold effect
concentration
MacDonald et al, 2000
TEC = 22.7 mg/kg
Snake River
Yakima River
^ Columbia main
stem
35
-------
O)
.££
"5)
E
2
Figure 33. Nickel data sorted by concentration
on
OE;
on
15
m
n;
n
***
***
****
******
******
***********
_********
**********
*
O)
Si
E
z"
Figure 34. Nickel concentration vs. % fines
R2 = 0.003
on
75
20
15
10
EL
n
** *
* * *
*
k * 4 * *
* * *
:*> * * 4 * *
** ** * * *
***** * *
A
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Per cent fines
Figure 35. Nickel concentration vs. total organic carbon (TOC)
R2 = 0.03
on
o) on
1 15
E I0
-1 -in
•2. IU
E;
n
^ *
** *
***> 'Z** /*
4* * *
*
01 2345
Total organic carbon, %
-------
70
Figure 36. Nickel geographic comparisons
60
50
40
1
o
30
20
10
\/
/\
/\
A
\/
A
A
75th
percentile
median
25th
percentile
See Table 3 for
citations for
comparison
datasets.
mid-Columbia
lower Columbia (EMAP)
NAWQA
upper Columbia reference
-------
Figure 37. Zinc concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
600
0 5
upstream
10
15 20
station ID
25
PEC = 459 mg/kg
PEC = Probable effect
concentration
TEC = Threshold effect
concentration
MacDonald et al, 2000
TEC = 121 mg/kg
Snake River
Yakima River
^ Columbia main
stem
30 35
downstream
-------
Figure 38. Zinc data sorted by concentration
Ron
_ 400
*S)
P 300
N ?nn
-inn
n
*
+
**
****
,****»»"""""******4
o>
"5)
E
5
Figure 39. Zinc concentration vs. per cent fines
R2 = 0.01
ROO
COO
400
300
200
100
n
» •
^ ^
£
* -
* *» *
• t t » .1* *
• »» »** *v* * * **» * *
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Per cent fines
O)
"5)
E
d
N
Rgure 40. Zinc concentration vs. total organic carbon (TOC)
R2 = 0.29
ROO T
500
400
300
700
100
o
*
•
* »
» *** *
**A* *
41^ * «*** ** »
012345
Total organic carbon, %
-------
Figure 41. Zinc geographic comparisons
600
D
500
400
300
o
c
N
200
100
\/
/\
D
f
mid-Columbia
lower Columbia (EMAP)
NAWQA
/ \
75th
percentile
median
25th
percentile
minimum
upper Columbia reference
See Table 3 for
citations for
comparison
datasets.
-------
Figure 42. Estimated total DDT (p, p' DDT + p, p' DDE + p, p' DDD) concentrations in
mid-Columbia sediments
3.5
3 -
)
3
a
a
To
3
1...
0.5
•
•
PEC = 572 ug/kg
TEC = 5.3 ug/kg
Reporting limits are
variable
For graphing purposes,
"U" values were replaced
with zero.
All detected
concentrations were
estimates ("J-qualified")
Snake River
A Yakima River
* Columbia main
stem
0 5
upstream
10
15 20
station ID
25
30 35
downstream
-------
Figure 43. Estimated p, p' DDE concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
1.8
1.6 -
1.4 -
1.2
O)
"3)
3
uf
a
a
"a.
CL
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
upstream
—i—
5
10
15 20
station ID
25
PEC = 31.3 ug/kg
TEC = 3.2 ug/kg
Reporting limits are
variable
For graphing purposes,
"U" values were replaced
with zero.
All detected
concentrations were
estimates ("J-qualified")
•
A
•
Snake River
Yakima River
Columbia main
stem
30 35
downstream
-------
Figure 44. Estimated p, p' ODD concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
0.8
0.7 -
0.6
a,0'5
£
"01
3
§0.4
a
0.2
0.1
• • •—» • • •—» • • »—» • •
10
upstream
15 20
station ID
25
PEC = 28 ug/kg
TEC = 4.9 ug/kg
Reporting limits are
variable
For graphing purposes,
"U" values were replaced
with zero.
All detected
concentrations were
estimates ("J-qualified")
•
Snake River
Yakima River
Columbia main
stem
30 35
downstream
-------
Figure 45. Estimated p,p' DDT concentrations in mid-Columbia sediments
2.5
O)
)
a
"a.
d
0.5
10
upstream
15 20
station ID
25
PEC = 62.9 ug/kg
TEC = 4.16ug/kg
Reporting limits are
variable
For graphing purposes,
"U" values were replaced
with zero.
All detected
concentrations were
estimates ("J-qualified")
Snake River
Yakima River
Columbia main
stem
30 35
downstream
-------
Figure 46. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD concentration in mid-Columbia sediments
SLV = 2800 / 23,000 ng/kg
iou -
140 -
120
O)
1,100
6,7,8,9-OCDD,
oo
o
i
Tf^
S; 60 -
40 -
20
0
C
•
^
•
*
.
•
•i *.«
• .'•• AA *• .
One detection at
1010 ng/kg at station
6a is not shown here
as it flattens the
vertical axis of the
graph
Reporting limits are
variable
For graphing
purposes, "U" values
were replaced with
zero.
All detected
concentrations were
estimates ("J-
qualified")
Snake River
A Yakima River
* Columbia main
stem
1 w w w — w — i — w 1 1 i — — — ^~
) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
upstream Station ID downstream
-------
Figure 47. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD concentrations in mid-Columbia sediment
a,
O)
Q
Q
O
100
90
80 -
70
60
50 -
40
30
20
10
* AA •
0 5
upstream
10
15 20
Station ID
• •
25
SLV = 83 / 650 ng/kg
Reporting limits are
variable
For graphing
purposes, "U" values
were replaced with
zero.
All detected
concentrations were
estimates ("J-
qualified")
•
Snake River
Yakima River
Columbia main
stem
30 35
downstream
-------
Figure 48. Sum of estimated PBDE congeners in mid-Columbia sediments
2.5-
«f
01
s
I
ro
E 1.5
•4=
-------
Figure 49. Estimated PBDE congeners, mid-Columbia sediments
PBDEs were
detected, but
concentrations
were estimated
(qualified with a
"J" flag)
congener
D#154
• #153
D#100
D#99
• #47
D#28
1234567
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Station ID
upstream
downstream
------- |