«EFA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
www.epa.gov
Authors:
Lillian Herger, Lorraine Edmond, and Gretchen Hayslip
EPA-910-R-17-002
March 2017
Mid-Columbia River Fish
Toxics Assessment
EPA Region 10 Report
Iff
-mt
-- - ¦="¦' ¦ -
-r-
- CS sSfrrt
-------
-------
Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment
EPA Region 10 Report
Authors:
Lillian Herger, Lorraine Edmond, and Gretchen Hayslip
March 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98101
Publication Number: EPA-910-R-17-002
Suggested Citation:
Herger, L.G., L. Edmond, and G. Hayslip. 2016. Mid-Columbia River fish toxics
assessment: EPA Region 10 Report. EPA-910-R-17-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
This document is available at: www.epa.gov/columbiariver/mid-columbia-river-fish-
toxics-assessment
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
i
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
3reviations
Abbreviation
Definition
BZ #
Congener numbers assigned by Ballschmiter and Zell
CDF
Cumulative Distribution Function
CM
Channel marker
CR
Columbia River
DDD
Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethane
DDE
Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene
DDT
Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
ECO
Ecological
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
GIS
Geographic Information System
HH
Human Health
HCB
Hexachlorobenzene
HRGC/HRMS
High Resolution Gas Chromatography / High Resolution Mass Spectrometry
ICPMS
Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
IDEQ
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
LCR
Lower Columbia River
MCR
Mid-Columbia River
MDL
Minimum detection limit
NA
Not Applicable
ND
Non-detected
ODEQ
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ORP
Oxidation-Reduction Potential
PBDE
Polybrominated diphenyl ether
PCB
Polychlorinated biphenyl
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC
Quality Control
RARE
Regional Applied Research Effort
REMAP
Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
S.E.
Standard error
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
SPMD
Semi-Permeable Membrane Device
Std. Dev.
Standard Deviation
SV
Screening Value
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
USGS
United States Geological Survey
ii
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
List of Units
Abbreviation
Definition
C
centigrade
cm
centimeter
DD
decimal degrees
g
gram
g/day
grams per day
L
liter
M
meter
mg/Kg
milligrams per Kilogram
mg/L
milligrams per Liter
ml
milliliter
mm
millimeter
ng/g
nanograms per gram
ng/Kg
nanograms per kilogram
NTU
nephelometric turbidity units
km
kilometer
ppb
part per billion
ppm
part per million
ppt
part per trillion
RM
river mile
rkm
River kilometer
sq. km
Square kilometer
Mg/g
micrograms per gram
M-g/L
micrograms per Liter
WW
wet weight
iii
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations ii
List of Units iii
I. Abstract 1
Human Health Findings 1
Ecological Findings 2
II. Introduction 3
A. Background 3
1. EPA's Environmental Monitoring Program 3
2. Columbia Geography 4
3. Human Uses in the Basin 6
4. Past Studies of Toxic Contaminants in the Basin 7
5. Concerns for Toxics in Fish Tissue 8
B. Purpose and Objectives 14
III. Study Overview 15
A. Survey Design 15
B. Site Selection 15
C. Assessment Indicators 16
1. Fish Tissue 16
2. Other Supporting Data 18
IV. Methods 20
A. Quality Assurance 20
B. Field Sample Collection 20
1. Fish Tissue Sampling 20
2. Water Quality, Physical Habitat, and Invasive Species Sampling 21
C. Fish Tissue Laboratory Methods 22
D. Data Analysis Methods 23
1. Application of Weighting Factors and Use of CDFs 23
2. Screening for Levels of Concern 24
V. Results 29
A. Extent of Resource Represented by the Sampling 29
B. Extent of Fish Species Sampled 29
1. HH-fish 29
2. Eco-fish 30
C. Fish Tissue Results - Human Health Endpoints 31
1. Mercury 34
2. DDT and Related Compounds 35
3. Chlorinated Pesticides 36
4. Dioxins and Furans 37
5. PCBs 38
6. PBDEs 38
D. Fish Tissue Results- Ecological Endpoints 39
1. Inorganics- Mercury and Trace Metals/metalloids 41
2. DDTs 42
3. Chlorinated Pesticides 43
iv
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
4. PCBs 44
5. PBDEs 45
VI. Discussion 46
A. Relative Extent of Contaminants of Concern (COCs) 46
B. Comparisons to Other Mainstem Columbia Results 49
1. Lower Columbia River: reach-wide Eco-fish study (Hayslip et al. 2007) 49
2. Lower Columbia River: select sites HH fish study (Nilsen et al. 2014) 51
3. Mid-Columbia River: select sites HH fish study (Washington Department of
Ecology) 51
4. Mid-Columbia River: select sites HH and Eco fish study Hanford Reach 53
5. Upper Columbia River: select sites HH and Eco-fish tissue risk assessment 54
C. Comparisons to Other Regions 55
1. Mid-continent Large Rivers: reach-wide HH and Eco fish study 55
2. National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA): nation-wide HH fish study.. 56
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations 58
VIII. Acknowledgements 59
IX. References 60
X. Appendices 65
v
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1. Example of a cumulative distribution function (CDF) graph 24
Figure 2. MCR reach extent represented by the species sampled for HH-endpoint tissue
with sample counts 30
Figure 3. MCR extent represented by the species sampled for eco-endpoint tissue with
sample counts 31
Figure 4. CDF plot of mercury concentrations in fillet fish tissue, MCR reach (N=718). 35
Figure 5. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the DDT and DDT breakdown products
human-health cancer SVs in fillet tissue (N=718 rkm) 36
Figure 6. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the four chlorinated pesticides human health
cancer SVs in fillet tissue (N=718 rkm) 37
Figure 7. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the total PCBs cancer and non-cancer SVs
in fillet tissue (N=718 rkm) 38
Figure 8. CDF plot of total PBDEs in fillet fish tissue, MCR reach (N=718) 39
Figure 9. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the trace element general aquatic SVs in
whole-fish tissue (N=718 rkm) 42
Figure 10. Percent of MCR reach exceeding four mercury SVs in whole-fish tissue
(N=718 rkm) 42
Figure 11. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the DDT SVs in whole fish tissue (N=718
rkm) 43
Figure 12. CDF plot of total chlordane concentrations in whole fish tissue, MCR reach
(N=718 rkm) 44
Figure 13. CDF plot of total PCBs concentration in whole fish tissue, MCR (N=718 rkm).
44
Figure 14. CDF plot of total PBDE concentration in whole fish tissue, MCR (N=718 rkm).
45
Figure 15. Exceedances of Human Health SVs, cancer and non-cancer with 90%
confidence bounds 47
Figure 16. SV exceedence for Eco fish analytes, with 90% confidence bounds 48
Figure 17. Comparison of MCR (N=718 rkm) and LCR (N= 611 sq.km) percent
exceedances of the general aquatic SV in whole-fish tissue for eight analytes
(Source: Hayslip et al. 2007) 50
Figure 18. Total DDTs concentrations in Eco-fish composite samples at each sample
site, MCR 53
VI
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
List of Tables
Table 1. State fish consumption advisories issued for the MCR and tributaries 10
Table 2. Summary of MCR and tributaries on State 303d Lists1 as impaired by toxic
contamination 12
Table 3. Field methods used for MCR data collection 22
Table 4. Laboratory methods used for MCR fish tissue analyses 23
Table 5. Human health SVs used to evaluate MCR fillet fish tissue results. SVs for two
effects levels with two fish consumption rates. Units are all ng/g (ppb) fillet
wet weight 26
Table 6. Ecological endpoint SVs used to evaluate MCR whole body fish tissue results.
Units are all ng/g (ppb) whole body wet weight (Source: Lazorchak et al.
2003, Dyer et al. 2000 as updated by B. Shephard) 28
Table 7. Summary of MCR sampling extent by State 29
Table 8. Summary statistics and percentile results for HH (fillet) analytes with available
SVs, MCR (N=718 rkm) 33
Table 9. Summary of human health (fillet) SV exceedances expressed as % MCR reach
(N=718 rkm) 34
Table 10. List of Human health (fillet) dioxins and furans included in MCR analysis 37
Table 11. Summary statistics and percentile results for Eco-fish tissue (whole body),
MRC (N=718 rkm) 40
Table 12. Eco-fish tissue (whole body) SV exceedances expressed as % MCR reach
(N=718 rkm) 41
Table 13. Chemical concentrations (ng/g ww) in largescale sucker fillet tissue
composites from three LCR sites (Source: Nilsen et al. 2014) 51
Table 14. Comparison of small whole fish mean chemical concentrations (ng/g ww) for
five Mid-continent large river reaches from Blocksom et al. (2010) and the
MCR mean reported at reach-scale. Standard error of mean in parens 56
Table 15. Comparison of HH fish results for NRSA and MCR for DDT, PBDE and PCB
(Source: unpublished EPA data, L. Stahl, pers. comm., May 2016) 57
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
List of Maps
Map 1. Columbia River basin showing major basins and Mid-Columbia reach 5
Map 2. Mid-Columbia River showing major dams (red bars) and 42 data collection
locations (blue circles) 7
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Land cover conditions within assessment areas 65
Appendix 2. Description of Mid-Columbia sample sites 67
Appendix 3. Fish tissue analytes and associated methods and detection limits 69
Appendix 4. Human health endpoint PBDE analytes. Method HRGC/HRMS EPA
method 1614 for PBDEs 72
Appendix 5. Human health endpoint fillet tissue PCBs analytes (method HRGC/HRMS
EPA method 1668) 73
Appendix 6. Summary of habitat and water chemistry data. Methods used for chemical
analysis is in the QAPP (ODEQ 2010a). Summarized results with
summary statistics to provided general description of conditions 74
Appendix 7. Description of human health endpoint fish composite samples collected
from 41 probability sampling sites Mid-Columbia River 79
Appendix 8. Description of Eco-fish composite samples collected from 37 probability
sampling sites in the Mid-Columbia River 81
Appendix 9. Human health endpoint fish fillet tissue summary statistics. Units in ng/g
ww 83
Appendix 10. List of other human health endpoint fish fillet tissue PCBs analyzed but
with insufficient detections for CDF calculations 88
Appendix 11. List of Eco-endpoint whole fish analytes with summary statistics and %
non-detects 89
Appendix 12. Fillet tissue concentration cumulative distribution frequency (CDF)
estimates for analytes detected at >40% of MCR sites. Upper and lower
90% confidence bounds are shown. Units are ng/kg ww except mercury is
mg/kg ww 91
Appendix 13. Whole fish tissue concentration cumulative distribution frequency (CDF)
estimates for analytes detected at >40% of MCR sites. Upper and lower
90% confidence bounds are shown. Units are ng/g ww except trace
elements are in mg/kg ww 138
viii
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
¦tract
The Columbia River Basin is a priority watershed for States, Tribes, federal agencies,
and nonprofit organizations and was designated as a 'critical ecosystem' that warrants
protection in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 2006-2011 Strategic Plan
(USEPA 2006a). Past studies by EPA and others have found significant concentrations
of toxic contaminants in fish and the waters they inhabit throughout the basin (USEPA
2009). However, the Mid-Columbia River main stem reach, between Bonneville Dam
and Grand Coulee Dam, has never been assessed for concentrations of contaminants
in fish tissue. This study of the Mid-Columbia River is an effort to fill this information
void.
A spatially distributed probabilistic sample design was used to select 42 sample sites
along the Mid-Columbia River main stem (MCR) to represent the entire 718 km (440
mile) reach. During the summers of 2008 and 2009, field crews collected two types of
fish samples to represent both human health and ecological endpoints. Water quality
and physical habitat data were also collected at each site. Fish tissue was analyzed for
a variety of toxic contaminants. Water samples were analyzed for physical and chemical
characteristics and trace elements.
Toxic contaminants were measured in fillet tissue for the human health endpoint and in
whole fish tissue for the ecological endpoint. Using the probabilistic study design, the
data were analyzed to produce statistical results that are expressed in terms of the
extent of the Mid-Columbia reach (MCR). The results were also compared to literature
screening values (SVs) to put the results in context for interpretation. Multiple
contaminants were found to exceed SV concentrations. Mercury, PCBs, and DDTs were
responsible for most of the exceedances of human health SVs. Trace elements and
DDTs were responsible for most of the exceedances of ecological SVs.
Human Health Findings
Tissue contaminant concentrations in fish fillet samples were compared to four types of
SVs. Cancer and non-cancer SVs were calculated for two different consumption rates,
one representing the general public and one representing people who consume fish at a
higher rate. All the contaminants that exceeded human health SVs in fillets were widely
detected. However, some widely detected contaminants did not exceed any of these
SVs. The following are general results on the extent and magnitude of contaminant
concentrations relevant to human health SVs in fish fillet samples collected from the
MCR.
Mercury was detected in all fillet samples, representing 100% of the MCR length.
Concentrations exceeded the non-cancer SVs for both the general and the high fish-
consuming populations in most of the MCR.
1
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
PCBs exceeded cancer SVs for both the general and the high fish-consuming
populations throughout the MCR reach. Non-cancer SVs were exceeded for both types
of consumers in a substantial proportion of the reach.
Total DDTs and DDE exceeded cancer SVs for both the general and high fish-
consuming populations in a substantial proportion of the MCR reach.
Several of the other chlorinated pesticides were frequently detected in tissue samples.
Only dieldrin exceeded both of the cancer SVs in a substantial proportion of the MCR
reach. Heptachlor epoxide and hexachlorobenzene also exceeded the cancer SVs but
to a lesser spatial extent.
PBDEs were frequently detected in fillet samples, but did not exceed any of the SVs.
Dioxins and furans were rarely detected. The dioxin congeners with available SVs
were not detected in the samples.
Ecological Findings
Tissue contaminant concentrations in whole fish samples were also compared to
available SVs. Three types of SVs were compared: piscivorous avian wildlife
(kingfisher), piscivorous wildlife (mink and otter), and general aquatic species SVs. The
avian SV are generally the lowest (most stringent) and therefore the ones most often
exceeded in these tissue samples. The following are general descriptions of the extent
and magnitude of contaminant concentrations in ecological SVs from whole fish
samples collected from the MCR.
Total DDTs and DDE exceeded both the kingfisher and general aquatic SVs in much
of the MCR reach, while DDD exceedances for kingfisher were more limited in extent.
Total chlordane exceeded the kingfisher SV in a small percent of the MCR length, and
was the only other chlorinated pesticide with an SV exceedance.
Total PBDEs exceeded the SV for American kestrels (a bird species) in a small
percentage of the MCR reach.
Mercury wildlife SVs were exceeded for kingfisher in much of the MCR reach, and for
otter and mink in a smaller proportion.
Several metals (zinc, copper, and selenium) exceeded the general aquatic SVs in
most of the MCR reach, while others (nickel, arsenic, and lead) exceeded them in a
smaller proportion of the river.
2
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
II. Introduction
The Columbia River is considered one of the great rivers of the world. By volume, the
Columbia is the fourth-largest river in the United States, and it has the greatest flow of
any North American river draining into the Pacific. The River has immense cultural,
environmental, and economic significance for the Pacific Northwest region.
The Columbia River Basin is a priority watershed for agencies, tribes, and other
organizations. Multiple locations in the mainstem and tributaries are known to have
contaminants in fish and in water at concentrations of concern (USEPA 2009). The
amount of data available from the Mid-Columbia River main stem is quite limited
compared to other more-studied parts of the basin. This lack of information led us to
initiate this study to begin filling data gaps regarding the 718 kilometer (440 mile) reach
between the Grand Coulee and Bonneville dams.
EPA Region 10 and Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) designed
the project to meet the goals of both EPA and Oregon, which include improving and
protecting water quality by monitoring and controlling pollutants in order to reduce risks
to human health and the environment. Analysis of contaminants in fish is the focus of
the study. Water quality, biological information, and habitat data are used to provide
context. Fish species were selected to represent both human health and ecological
endpoints.
Analysis of fillet samples from resident fish consumed by people is used to evaluate the
geographic extent of tissue contamination that exceeds concentrations of potential
concern for human health. Accumulation of toxics in fish threatens the survival of fish
species themselves, as well. Other species, such as fish-eating birds and mammals,
can also be harmed by consuming contaminated fish. Analysis of contaminants in whole
fish is used to evaluate the geographic extent of tissue contamination that exceeds
concentrations of potential concern for ecological receptors.
The assessment reach extends down-river from Grand Coulee Dam in Washington to
Bonneville Dam in Oregon. The Washington portion of the reach was sampled in 2008
by EPA and the Oregon portion in 2009 by ODEQ. ODEQ collected data from both the
randomly-located sites in Oregon as well as some hand-picked sites (ODEQ 2012).
Results from the hand-picked sites are not included in this assessment.
A. Background
1. EPA's Environmental Monitoring Program
This assessment of the MCR was designed as part of EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP), a national program of EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) to estimate the status and trends in the condition of the nation's
ecological resources. These assessments examine associations between indicators of
ecological condition and natural and human-caused stressors. This study of the Mid-
3
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Columbia River uses the key feature of all EMAP projects: a probabilistic sample
design, which allows a limited number of samples to represent the condition of a
relatively large resource with a known degree of statistical confidence.
2. Columbia Geography
With a total length of over 1931 km (1249 miles), the river begins in the Rocky
Mountains of British Columbia, Canada, flows southward into Washington State, then
turns westward to form the border between the States of Washington and Oregon
before discharging to the Pacific Ocean (Map 1). The U.S. portion of the basin is
525,003 sq. km in area (258,000 mi.2, approximately the size of France). Agriculture,
livestock grazing, and timber harvest are the primary land uses. Much of the basin is
arid, including large areas of plains with annual precipitation of 18-51 cm. Portions of the
basin are mountainous and the median elevation is 1354 m. The Columbia River is
highly developed for hydroelectric production and contains more than 370 dams,
including 11 on the Columbia mainstem.
The Mid-Columbia is the river reach from Grand Coulee Dam downstream to Bonneville
Dam. It links the upper Columbia reachLake Roosevelt plus the free-flowing portion of
the river stretching to the Canadian border with the lower Columbia reachBonneville
Dam to the Pacific Ocean. Major tributaries to the MCR include the Okanogan, Methow,
Yakima, Snake, Umatilla, John Day, Deschutes, White Salmon, and Wind rivers. The
Snake River is by far the most significant tributary, flowing over a thousand miles before
it discharges to the Columbia near the Tri-Cities in eastern Washington. The Snake
River subbasin represents 67% of the land area that drains to the Mid-Columbia.
4
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
WUtanii
HIGHLi
Revelik
tLiltoaiA MO UNI
^ntKir
Kelowna
TAINS
SELKIRK
LeJlibndge
Kimbalev
AfcUi
.Mof-rook 0
Njn.iim,
jAbboljlor/j
Vlcloria4
GRAND COULEE
Spokare
.PRIEST RAPIDS
Helena
LewlMdn'
Orchards
BONNEVILLE
MCNARY,
Portland
OUNTAIN#
Range
BITTER ROOT RANGE
( Eugene
Idaho
Falls
NFVADj
O'jlen
Sail Lake
City
orem
Legend
° Dams
Hanford Reach
^ Mid Columbia Sample Reach
Mid Columbia Basin
nn Snake River Basin
Columbia River Basin
MONTANA
'"-'¦wSO.V>\ JTt-V;
Loaano
caclw
UTAH NfbS"!
CALIFORNIA
GREAT SALT
LAKE
DESERT
OREAT SALT
LAKE DESERi
xf4°e r*hge
PSJ o Raiding
'500
M Miles
Map 1. Columbia River basin showing major basins and Mid-Columbia reach.
5
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
3. Human Uses in the Basin
The Mid-Columbia basin is primarily rural, with scattered regional population centers
such as Boise, Yakima, Bend, Wenatchee, and the Tri-Cities area. The Snake River
portion of the assessment area contains the highest population, while the highest
density of people is found in the upper portion of the reach between Grand Coulee and
the Snake confluence.
The basin's land use is dominated by agriculture, especially near the rivers. Details of
land use based on a GIS land cover analysis are in Appendix 1. Although land use and
land cover are not synonymous, some land uses can be inferred from land cover data,
obtained from remote sensing. Although most of the land cover is classified as
shrub/grasslands, agricultural land cover makes up 15-24% of the entire MCR basin,
and increases to 23-35% in the area within 10 miles of the major rivers. Grazing land is
generally not included in the agricultural land cover, so the agricultural land use area is
likely underestimated.
The Columbia is one of the most hydroelectrically developed river systems in the world,
generating more than 21 million kilowatts, annually. The MCR is bounded by two large
federal hydropower dams, and contains nine others (Map 2) which essentially divide the
main stem into a series of large reservoirs. The Mid-Columbia also contains the sole
remaining free flowing section of the river in the US, the 82 rkm section between Priest
Rapids Dam and the city of Richland, known as the Hanford Reach. This reach is also
significant as the site of US plutonium production for nuclear weapons for World War II.
Post-production clean-up of this site began in 1989. The waste sites and facilities near
the River are part of an intensive investigation and clean-up effort including
radionuclides, metals, and organic chemicals.
6
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Chief
Grant
Coult
Seattle
Rocky
Reach
Bellevue
Rock
Island
Tacoma
Wanapum
Priest
Rapids
McNaryf-
.J-.-''
John Day
Vancouver
Portland'
The
Dalles
Map 2. Mid-Columbia River showing major dams (red bars) and 42 data collection locations (blue
circles).
4. Past Studies of Toxic Contaminants in the Basin
EPA studies and State and federal monitoring programs have found substantial
concentrations of contaminants in fish and the water of the Columbia River and its
tributaries (Tetra Tech 1996, Williamson et al. 1998, USEPA2002, Fuhreretal. 2004,
Hinck et al. 2006, ODEQ 2012). Toxic contamination in the Columbia Basin has been
documented for many years, but most studies target specific contaminants or focus on
specific reaches or tributaries. Studies of contamination have taken place recently in the
upper part of the main stem, in support of the Upper Columbia River hazardous waste
site (Exponent/Parametrix 2013), and in the upper reaches of the Mid-Columbia, related
to the Hanford Site (Hulstrom 2011). The lower Columbia River, below Bonneville Dam,
which supports the largest human population in the basin, has also been the focus of
numerous studies (Fuhrer et al. 1996, Tetra Tech 1996, Nilsen and Morace 2014).
These studies have sampled targeted locations based on a variety of factors, including
historical data and site accessibility. One exception is a 1999 EMAP study conducted in
the Lower Columbia River (Hayslip et al. 2006). This study used a sample design that
made statistical reach-wide estimates, which is comparable to the sample design of this
Mid-Columbia study.
7
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
USEPA (2009) conducted a basin-wide synthesis of four contaminant groups using
existing data. The report focused on mercury, the pesticide DDT and its breakdown
products, the polychlorinated biphenyl group of industrial compounds (PCBs), and a
class of flame retardants (PBDEs). These contaminants are among those found
throughout the basin, including the MCR, and at concentrations that could adversely
impact people, aquatic life, and wildlife. The report concluded that although PCB and
DDT contamination may be declining over time, they are still present at levels of
concern for both human health and fish-eating animals, and that mercury and PBDE
contamination may still be increasing.
Aside from the well-studied Hanford Reach, which makes up 12% of the Mid-Columbia
main stem, there is a lack of assessments of toxic contamination in this region. Some
studies of much larger areas such as USEPA 2002 and Hinck et al. 2006 include a few
widely-spaced sample locations in the main stem of the MCR, but do not attempt to
characterize or assess the Mid-Columbia in particular.
5. Concerns for Toxics in Fish Tissue
Contaminants have been found in several fish species in rivers throughout the Columbia
River Basin as described above. These have the potential to impact people, wildlife, and
fish. Public awareness of the condition of Mid-Columbia aquatic resources, including
toxic levels in fish, is informed by government sources. Two primary sources of this
information are State fish consumption advisories and the Clean Water Act's 303(d) list
of impaired waters.
Fish consumption advisories in the Mid-Columbia
To protect people, the State and federal agencies issue fish consumption advisories for
specific fish species in water bodies that exceed human health criteria. Advisories are
intended to protect the general public or sensitive populations such as women of
childbearing age, nursing or pregnant women, and children. State health agencies use
human health criteria to determine when and where to issue fish consumption
advisories. Whether or not a chemical is of concern depends on the amount of fish
consumed from a particular water body. State health agencies take into account many
factors as they formulate their health communication for the public. These include the
health benefits of eating fish, the availability of less contaminated fish or food from other
sources, and background concentrations. Each State determines the methodology and
consumption rates they use to derive consumption advisories. These differ among the
three States with jurisdiction within the Mid-Columbia (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington).
The Mid-Columbia River and its tributaries have several fish consumption advisories
issued by the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, summarized in Table 1. Most
fish advisories do not imply that fish from a specific waterbody should not be consumed,
but they recommend limiting the amount of specific types offish consumed. The
exceptions are a few noted "do-not-eat" in the list below. Advisories in the Mid-Columbia
are for PCBs, DDTs, and mercury. Most of these advisories are for certain fish species
8
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
within specific water bodies, though some apply to all waters within a State. Because
methylmercury affects the developing human nervous system (NRC 2000), advisories
based on elevated mercury concentrations have lower consumption recommendations
for young children, nursing mothers, and women who are or might become pregnant
than they have for the rest of the population.
Table 1. State fish consumption advisories issued for the MCR and tributaries.
Contaminant
Water body
Species
Notes
Mid-Columbia Basin in Washington1
PCBs
Clark County
clams
applies near and downstream
of former Vanalco plant, RM
103
PCBs and
mercury
Mid-Columbia mainstem,
pool behind Bonneville Dam,
up to Ft Raines
all resident fish
joint advisory, Washington
and Oregon
PCBs and
mercury
Mid-Columbia mainstem
from Ft Raines (a mile east of
Bonneville Dam) upstream to
McNary Dam
multiple resident fish (limited
consumption), northern
pikeminnow (do-not-eat)
joint advisory, Washington
and Oregon
PCBs
Walla Walla River
carp, pikeminnow
PCBs and
mercury
Wenatchee River, Icicle Creek
to Columbia River
smallmouth and largemouth
bass (limited consumption),
mountain whitefish (do-not-
eat)
DDTs
Okanagan River
carp
PCBs
Yakima River
carp
an advisory based on DDTs in
bottom fish was lifted in 2009
since concentrations declined
Mercury
Statewide
smallmouth and largemouth
bass (limited consumption)
for women who are or who
might become pregnant,
nursing mothers, and young
children
Mercury
Statewide
northern pikeminnow (do-
not-eat)
for women who are or who
might become pregnant,
nursing mothers, and young
children
1. Issued by the Washington State Department of Health, updated at
http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Food/Fish/Advisories.aspx
9
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 1, continued. State fish consumption advisories issued for the MCR and tributaries.
Contaminant
Water body
Species
Notes
PCBs/ mercury
PCBs/ mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mid-Columbia Basin in Oregon2
Mid-Columbia mainstem, all resident fish
pool behind Bonneville Dam,
up to Ft Raines
Mid-Columbia mainstem
from Ft Raines (a mile east of consumption), northern
Bonneville Dam) upstream to pikeminnow (do-not-eat)
McNary Dam
Joint advisory for WA and
OR. (note: OR website list
only for PCBs)
multiple resident fish (limited Joint advisory for WA and
OR. (note: OR website list
only for PCBs)
Snake River including
Brownlee Reservoir and
Powder River Arm
all resident fish
Mid-Columbia Basin in Idaho (includes Snake River and tributaries)3
Statewide
American Falls Reservoir
Boise River
Brownlee Reservoir
Chesterfield Reservoir
Grasmere Reservoir
Hells Canyon Reservoir
Jordan Creek
Lake Lowell
Oakley Reservoir
Payette River
Portneuf River
Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir
smallmouth and largemouth
bass
Utah sucker
catfish
carp, catfish, crappie, perch
rainbow trout
Lahontan cutthroat trout
carp, catfish
redband trout
sucker, carp
yellow perch, walleye
sucker
cutthroat, rainbow, and
brown trout
perch, walleye*, rainbow
trout, smallmouth bass*
for bass and walleye over
16in, "do-not-eat" for
women who are or who
might become pregnant,
nursing mothers, and
children under 15 years
Shoofly Reservoir
South Fork Snake River
Lahontan cutthroat trout
brown trout
2. Issued by Oregon Department of Human Services, updated at
http://public.health.oregon.gov/healthyenvironments/recreation/pages/fishconsumption.aspx
3. Issued by Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, updated at
http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Health/EnvironmentalHealth/FishAdvisories/tabid/180/default.aspx
10
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Water quality impairment list for the Mid-Columbia
Water quality is an important factor in the survival of aquatic life, wildlife, and plants that
live in the Columbia River Basin. The Clean Water Act requires each State to track the
water quality status of water bodies and to maintain a list of "impaired waters" (also
called the 303(d) list) that do not meet State water quality standards. The toxic
contaminants that exceed State water quality standards in the Mid-Columbia basin are
dioxins, DDT, DDE, other organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides, PCBs,
mercury, and other metals (Table 2). It is important to note that States do not
comprehensively monitor all waters for all contaminants. Further, each State monitors
for different contaminants and each designates their water bodies differently (some by
segment, some by river mile) The number of listings is not directly comparable from one
part of the basin to another. Additional information and updates to State 303(d) impaired
water bodies lists can be found at the web sites maintained by each State's
environmental agency.
11
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 2. Summary of MCR and tributaries on State 303d Lists1 as impaired by toxic contamination.
Tributary
Dioxins
PCBs DDTs Other
OCPs2
OPPs3
Total
Pesticide
Mercury
Other Metals
Main stem Columbia and tributaries below Snake River conf. (ordered downstream to upstream)
Columbia: Bonneville
Dam to Snake R.
:
:
White Salmon R.
Hood R.
:
:
;
:
:
:
Mill Creek
:
:
:
Deschutes R.
John Day R.
:
:
.
¦
Columbia: Yakima R to
John Day Dam
Umatilla R.
i
Walla Walla R.
:
Main stem Columbia and tributaries above Snake River confluence
Yakima R.
:
Esquatzal Coulee
;
:
Crab Creek
*
:
:
:
:
Columbia: Rock Island
Dam to Yakima R
Wenatchee R.
:
:
Chelan R.
Columbia: Chelan R to
Rock Island Dam
:
Methow R.
!
: :
Okanogan R.
Columbia: below
Grand Coulee Dam
12
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 2, continued. Summary of MCR and tributaries on State 303d Lists1 as impaired by toxic
contamination.
Tributary
Dioxins PCBs DDTs
Other
OCPs2
OPPs3
Total
Pesticide
Mercury
Other
Metals
Snake Mainstem and tributaries (ordered downstream to upstream)
Snake, mouth to Palouse R.
Palouse R.
Snake: Palouse R. to
Clearwater R.
Clearwater R.
Grande Ronde R.
Snake: the OR - ID border
Salmon R.
Powder R.
Burnt R.
Payette R.
Malheur R.
Boise R.
Owyhee R.
Bruneau R.
Salmon Falls
Big Wood R.
Goose R.
Snake: Lake Walcott
Blackfoot
Snake: American Falls
Salt R.
1. State 303(d) lists used: Idaho 303(d) 2010 (IDEQ 2010), Oregon 303(d) 2010 list with additions from proposed 2012 list (ODEQ
2010b), WA: 303(d) 2012 list (WA Dept. Ecology 2012)
2. OCPs abbreviation for other organochlorine pesticides (aside from DDTs)
3. OPPs abbreviation for organophosphate pesticides.
13
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
B. Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the contaminants in fish consumed by
both humans and wildlife using concentration data from representative fish tissue
collected from the MCR. Four contaminants or groups of contaminants are addressed:
mercury/metals, persistent organic pesticides, PCBs, and PBDEs. The data are used to
address these questions:
What are the concentrations of contaminants in fillets of fish species
consumed by humans?
What are the concentrations of contaminants in small prey fish consumed by
wildlife and by other fish?
What is the estimated percentage of the MCR with contaminant
concentrations above levels of potential concern for humans and for wildlife
species?
Other data, including water quality, physical habitat, and presence of invasive mussel
veligers (a larval stage of mussels) data are provided to supplement the current
conditions in the Mid-Columbia and to provide context for this toxics assessment.
14
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
jcly Overview
A. Survey Design
Assessing a very large and diverse river reach requires a study design that can
describe the condition of the entire resource. There are various statistical design
options. A census method, where data are collected from every possible sample site, is
impractical (if not impossible). This survey used a probabilistic sampling method where
sample sites are selected randomly from the entire pool of possible sites belonging to
the resource of interest or "target population". Every river segment of the target
population has a known non-zero probability of being selected for sampling. This feature
has two advantages: 1) it prevents site selection bias and 2) it enables statistically valid
inferences to be made for the entire target population. In other words, because the set
of sample sites are representative of the entire study reach or "inference population",
data collected from these sites can be used to make estimations of the spatial extent of
any measured parameter. This design is used for "EPA's National Aquatic Resource
Surveys (NARS), and can be conducted at regional or local scales as well. Additional
details are in Diaz-Ramos et al. (1996), Stevens (1997), and Stevens and Olsen (1999).
For the Mid-Columbia assessment, 42 random sites were selected from the 718 km
(440 mile) target population. Data from these sites are statistically representative of the
entire 718 rkm "inference population" and are therefore used to describe the condition
for the entire reach with known statistical confidence.
B. Site Selection
The list or map that identifies every unit within the target population is termed the
sampling frame. The Mid-Columbia sampling frame was based on a river-center line
GIS data layer developed from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD-Plus). The
frame included every km-long segment of the 718 km-long reach river reach from Grand
Coulee Dam to Bonneville Dam. The sample sites were randomly selected from this
frame in a manner to ensure distribution of sites throughout the entire study reach. In
this study, funding dictated an uneven distribution of sites by State with 23 sites in
Oregon and 19 in Washington. This was achieved by using an unequal probability
sample method for the target population for each of the two States. Site weighting
factors are used to compensate for uneven sample probabilities between the two
States. Oregon sites are assigned a lower weight because the density of sampled sites
in Oregon per river length was higher compared to the density of sites in Washington.
The weighting factor is applied in order to make inferences that are valid for the entire
target population. Map 2 shows the location of the 42 sample sites, and site locations
are listed in Appendix 2.
Of the original sites selected for sampling, all were sampleable and field data and
samples were collected (or attempted) at each of the 42 locations. Because none of the
sites were omitted or replaced due to access problems (inaccessible due to safety,
permission, etc.), the sample set is representative of the entire target population.
Therefore, the spatial extent of the river represented by these data from the 42 sites, the
'inference population', is identical to the target population (718 rkm).
15
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
C. Assessment Indicators
1. Fish Tissue
Two different endpoints are evaluated in this assessment. The Human Health (HH)
endpoint, referred to as "HH-fish" in this report, considers toxic contaminants that are
present in fish fillet tissue and reflects the exposure to humans who eat those fish from
the Mid-Columbia River. The ecological (ECO) endpoint, referred to as "Eco-fish" in this
report, considers toxic contaminants that are present in whole bodies offish that are
consumed by wildlife predators. The chemicals of concern analyzed in both types of
samples are generally bioaccumulative and persistent and therefore harmful to fish
consumers, whether human or wildlife.
The chemicals that are assessed are described below. The complete lists of analytes
for both endpoints and their corresponding analytical methods are in Appendix 3,
Appendix 4, and Appendix 5. Some chemicals are actually groups of many individual
analytes. Because fillet samples and whole fish samples were analyzed at different
laboratories, the analyte lists and the number of actual analytes in each category vary
slightly between these two sample types.
Mercury (both fillets and whole fish)
Mercury is an elemental metal that is toxic at low concentrations, affecting the nervous
system and brain in both humans and animals. The methylated form of mercury
bioaccumulates in the food chain. Atmospheric deposition is believed to be the most
significant pathway transporting mercury through the environment (Driscoll et al. 2013).
A basin-specific estimate for the Columbia River attributed 84% of the mercury to this
pathway (Dwight Atkinson, pers. comm., cited in USEPA2009). Other basin scale
sources are runoff, point discharges, metals mining, and local industries (e.g., cement,
ore roasting, coal-fired power plants).
DDT and related compounds (6 analytes in both fillets and whole fish)
DDT is an organochlorine pesticide once widely used in agriculture areas of the
Columbia Basin. Highly persistent in the environment, DDT and its breakdown products
(i.e., structural analogs), DDE and DDD, bioaccumulate in the food web. We refer to
these collectively as DDTs in this document. These chemicals are linked to cancer in
humans and neurological and developmental disorders in birds and other animals.
Although banned in 1972, DDTs still persist in the environment. The primary source of
DDTs to the Columbia River is the large extent of agricultural lands. Soil erosion from
wind and water are the primary pathways that move DDTs from fields to the Columbia
River and its tributaries.
16
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Chlorinated pesticides (20 analvtes in fillets, 17 in whole fish)
Besides DDTs, other organochlorine pesticides are included in this study. Most are
cylclodiene pesticides such as aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, and mirex. Like DDT, these
are all highly chlorinated, persistent organic pesticides that degrade slowly and can
bioaccumulate in animal tissue. These were once widely used in large quantities in the
United States. They were used for a variety of applications, including insect control on
agricultural crops and cotton, treatment of livestock, control of ants, termite control in
houses, and control of insects that carry human diseases such as malaria. Because of
evidence supporting the adverse environmental and human health effects of these
substances, including their probable carcinogenicity, the use of these pesticides was
phased out in the U.S. during the 1970s and 80s.
Dioxins and furans (18 analvtes in fillets only)
Dioxins and furans are formed as a by-product of the manufacture, molding, or burning
of organic chemicals and plastics that contain chlorine. Dioxins and furans can cause a
number of health effects. The most well-known member of the dioxin/furan family is
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), a likely cancer-causing substance to
humans. People exposed to dioxins and furans have experienced changes in hormone
levels and high doses of dioxin have caused a skin disease called chloracne. Animal
studies show that exposure to dioxins and furans can cause changes in the endocrine
system, changes in the development of the fetus, decreased ability to reproduce, and
suppressed immune systems.
PCB congeners (172 analvtes in fillets, 21 in whole fish)
Polychlorinated biphenyls are synthetic compounds that were widely used in electrical
equipment such as electrical transformers. These persistent chemicals bioaccumulate in
body fat and biomagnify in the food chain. PCBs have many congeners that vary in
degree of toxicity. PCB manufacture was banned in 1979 because the compounds are
carcinogenic and pose environmental and human health risks. PCBs have high stability
and persist in the environment. Substantial inputs of PCBs to the Columbia River are
associated with industrial areas, where spills or leakage of PCBs have occurred.
PBDE congeners (34 analvtes in fillet samples, 8 in whole fish)
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are synthetic flame retardants that are added to plastics
and fabrics to reduce flammability. PBDEs are released slowly into the environment
from production, use, and disposal of products that contain PBDEs. They are chemically
similar to PCBs in that they have many congeners and also bioaccumulate in the
freshwater environment. Effects on fish are thought to be similar to those from PCBs,
ranging from neurotoxicity to endocrine disruption. Little is known about the health
effects of PBDEs on people, but EPA considers neurobehavioral effects to be the
endpoint of concern. Recent findings that PBDEs are widely distributed in the
17
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
environment and are present at increasing concentrations in people have raised
concerns about the potential risks of PBDE exposure. Sources of PBDEs to the
Columbia River are not well understood, though municipal wastewaters may be a
significant pathway.
Other metals/metalloids (8 analvtes in whole fish samples only)
In addition to mercury, Eco-fish samples were analyzed for eight other trace elements:
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc. Only total
concentrations of these elements were analyzed and no speciation data are available
(e.g., inorganic arsenic, methylmercury). Fillet samples were not analyzed for metals
other than mercury.
2. Other Supporting Data
Although the focus of the assessment is toxic contamination in fish tissue, we also
collected some supporting information including a limited amount of data on water
quality and physical habitat characteristics. Each category is described briefly below
and the data are summarized in Appendix 6.
Water quality
Physiochemical water quality characteristics affect the ability of species to persist in the
riverine habitat. Water quality data were collected to determine acid-base status,
nutrient enrichment, and chemical stressors. We also collected information on redox
potential, total organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, sulfate, and water hardness.
Physical water data parameters collected include light penetration (e.g., turbidity,
suspended solids), temperature, and ionic strength (e.g., conductivity). Chemical
parameters include the concentrations of dissolved gases, major cations, anions, and
nutrients (i.e., nitrogen, phosphorus). Unfiltered samples were analyzed for total
metals/metalloids (arsenic, copper, lead, cadmium, selenium, and mercury) and filtered
samples were analyzed for dissolved mercury.
Physical habitat
Physical habitat includes all those structural attributes that influence or sustain
organisms within the river. The structural complexity of aquatic habitats provides the
variety of physical and chemical conditions to support diverse biotic assemblages and
maintain long-term stability. Some common physical habitat attributes are stream size,
channel gradient, substrate size, fish cover, and riparian vegetation structure.
Anthropogenic alterations of riparian areas and stream channels can reduce the
complexity of aquatic habitat and result in species loss and ecosystem degradation. The
understanding of the physical habitat of an area allows for better assessments of the
stream ecosystem and human caused effects. Stressor indicators derived from data
18
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
collected about physical habitat quality can be used to help explain or diagnose river
condition. Observational data on physical characteristics of the riparian and nearshore
area are included as a general assessment of habitat characteristics (Appendix 6).
19
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
IV, Methods
A. Quality Assurance
Field crews followed protocols described in the Field Methods Manual (USEPA 2008a)
to collect field data and to maintain sample integrity. Two separate crews collected the
data. An EPA Region 10 crew sampled Washington sites in 2008 and an Oregon DEQ
crew sampled Oregon sites in 2009. Consistency and adherence to the field protocols
was assured by crew member participation in training sessions and field audits. All data
were collected/generated according to procedures described in the project's Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (USEPA 2008b). A second QAPP describes the
analytical work by the Oregon DEQ Laboratory (ODEQ 2010a).
B. Field Sample Collection
Field data were collected during the summer months in 2008 in Washington and in 2009
in Oregon at the random locations selected from the sample frame. The random sample
locations designated by the sample frame are mid-channel locations termed "X-sites."
The samples were collected shoreward from the X-site. Sample collection alternated
between the left and right river bank with the right bank used for even-numbered sites,
and the left bank for odd-numbered sites. Fish sampling was conducted within a 500m
reach upriver and downriver of the X-site using boat electrofishing gear. Sampling was
concentrated along the shoreline within approximately 30m of the designated bank. For
the other data collection, the boat was anchored at a point approximately 30m off the
bank and data/samples were collected. Further details on field methods and sample
preservation and handling are in the Field Operations Manual (USEPA 2008a).
1. Fish Tissue Sampling
Our purpose was to collect fish at each sample site so that the entirety of the fish
sampling would represent the reach. Due to different life histories, exposures, and
trophic status, fish species vary in their contaminant load and sampling a single species
across all sites would yield a different result than if a mix of species were sampled.
Therefore, we developed a target fish species list to minimize the effect of sampling
different species while still obtaining a representative sample across sites (USEPA
2008a). The target species list incorporated several criteria for fish selection. The
criteria common for both the HH and ECO endpoints were 1) the species are distributed
throughout the study reach (from Grand Coulee Dam downriver to Bonneville Dam), 2)
are catchable using daytime boat electrofishing gear, and 3) are resident (relatively non-
migratory), therefore having the potential to accumulate concentrations of chemicals
from the local freshwater environment. Human health endpoint target species have the
additional criterion of being species that are commonly consumed by humans in the
area. A hierarchy of species selection was used to prioritize available human health
species by trophic level where piscivorous species were the highest, followed by
insectivores and omnivores. If multiple species were available at a site, the highest
20
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
trophic level species was collected. ECO endpoint target species have the additional
criterion of being small-sized (<200 mm) omnivores that are prey species of wildlife
(fish, mammals, and birds) of the area.
Crews attempted to retain the highest priority species available at each site according to
the target species list. If priority species were not available, crews would select the next
best available option. Two fish composite samples were collected at each site, one each
for HH and for ECO endpoint tissue analyses. Individuals of the same genus and
species and of similar size were combined to form each sample.
Fish tissue samples were processed using similar methods to those described in
USEPA 2000a. The HH composite samples consisted of five individuals of similar size
(within 75% total length). Each fish was field filleted and both the skin and belly flap
were removed. Local consumers are known to prepare fish both with and without skin
and belly flaps (CRITFC 1994) so this preparation results in samples that represent
tissue that all fish consumers eat but excludes some additional tissue that a subgroup of
fish consumers eat. This sample preparation method is consistent with methods used in
a significant fish tissue study conducted in the lower Columbia reach (Hayslip et al.
2006), which is used for comparison to these results. Skin removal also facilitates
homogenization of the fillets.
For the ECO composite, a variable number of similar-sized individuals (minimum of five)
were collected to obtain a minimum weight of 200 grams of whole fish. All samples were
preserved and shipped on dry ice. The human health fillet composites were analyzed by
Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality laboratory in Hillsboro, Oregon. The
ecological endpoint whole fish composites were analyzed at EPA's Office of Research
and Development laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio.
2. Water Quality, Physical Habitat, and Invasive Species Sampling
Field methods are summarized in Table 3. Sampling for most parameters was
conducted 30m away from the bank across from the mid-channel X-site. Further
discussion of these data is in Appendix 6.
21
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 3. Field methods used for MCR data collection.
Metric type
Field method
Water chemistry
Grab sample collected from depth of 0.3m using a peristaltic pump. Water collected
for analysis of total organic carbon, nutrients, total suspended solids, metals, sulfate,
and alkalinity.
Mercury water
sample
Collected using 'clean hands' protocols (EPA method 1669). Unfiltered water sample
collected with a peristaltic pump and Teflon tube deployed to 0.3m below surface.
Water quality profile
In situ DO, pH, water temperature, redox potential, turbidity, and conductivity were
measured with an electronic meter at the surface and through the water column.
Chlorophyll-a
Collected as part of water chemistry sample and field filtered.
Secchi disc
transparency
Deployed from shady side of boat. Depth of disappearance recorded.
Rapid habitat visual
assessment
Qualitative scoring of crew's observations addressing categories of reach
characteristics, fish cover, and general habitat and channel characteristics. Most
were recorded based on observations throughout the sample reach. Fish cover
observations restricted to near shore (10m) along the 500m fish sampling reach.
Invasive plant species
protocols
Visual observations along the 500m fish sampling reach.
Mussel veliger
collection
Four vertical plankton tows conducted in various locations (nearshore and open
water) in vicinity of X-site to collect juvenile life stage of introduced mussel species
(zebra and quagga mussels).
C. Fish Tissue Laboratory Methods
Fish tissue sample preparation and analysis was performed primarily by two
laboratories using methods detailed in the project QAPP (Caton 2010) and summarized
in Table 4. Fillet samples were analyzed by the ODEQ laboratory in Hillsboro Oregon
and whole fish samples were analyzed by EPA's Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati Laboratory (Ahlers 2010). Slight differences in analytical methods for specific
analytes are apparent between the human health (fillets) and the eco-samples (whole
fish), however sample treatment and analysis were identical within the two tissue types.
Fillet samples were homogenized individually and site composites were prepared by
combining equal mass from each fish's homogenate. Whole fish samples were
homogenized, then aliquots were extracted. Finally, whole fish aliquots were supplied to
EPA's Manchester laboratory for analysis of trace elements.
22
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 4. Laboratory methods used for MCR fish tissue analyses.
Contaminant
Preparation/Process
EPA method
Human health endpoint fillet samples
Mercury (total1)
ICP
EPA method 7374
Chlorinated pesticides
HRGC/HRMS
EPA method 1699
Dioxins/Furans
HRGC/HRMS
EPA method 1613
PCBs
HRGC/HRMS
EPA method 1668
PBDEs
HRGC/HRMS
EPA method 1614
Ecological endpoint whole fish samples
Pesticides, PCBs and
PBDEs
SOP# MIRB-045.4E EPA Method SW3545A
for extraction and SW3640A for cleaning.
Agilent gas chromatographs with micro-
electron capture detectors, GC-nECD
Analysis SOP# MIRB-046:
EPA Method SW8081 (pesticides)
and SW8082 (PCBand PBDE
congeners)
Selenium
Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Emission
Spectroscopy (ICP) and SOP# MIRB 040.2E.
EPA Method 200.7
Total mercury
Milestone DMA-80 and SOP# MIRB-033.1E.
EPA method 7374
Trace elements
3052-M - (MOD) Microwave Assisted Acid
Digestion of Siliceous and Organic Matrices
6020- ICPMS (15 elements)
1. Measurements were of total mercury, rather than methylated mercury because studies have shown that approximately 95%
of mercury in fish tissue is methylated (Bloom 1992).
D. Data Analysis Methods
Non-detects were replaced with zeros for organic chemicals data analysis (as in the
EMAP estuary study, Hayslip et al. 2006). This can result in biasing summary statistics
low. For metals, which occur naturally in water, we used the reporting limit values to
replace non-detects, so those summary statistics may be biased high.
1. Application of Weighting Factors and Use of CDFs
Analytical results were extrapolated to describe the entire Mid-Columbia target
population. As described in the design section, this is accomplished by assigning a
weight to each site as dictated by the random selection design. Results are presented in
terms of the estimated proportion of the target reach (e.g., percent of the total river
length). The sum of the site weights for all 42 sample sites is the total MCR length (718
rkm).
Any indicator in this study can be expressed in terms of the proportion of the river reach
length. This type of result is commonly displayed as a cumulative distribution function
(CDF) for indicators with continuous values, which shows the distribution of an indicator
accumulated over the entire Mid-Columbia target population. Indicators examined in this
report are primarily fish tissue contaminants. As shown in the sample graph below
23
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
(Figure 1), if a contaminant concentration above a SV of 25 units is considered
"impaired," then approximately 70% of the target population exceeds that threshold (and
the other 30% is below that value). Readers who prefer to use a different threshold
value simply draw the vertical line in a different location on the graph and project it
horizontally to the graph axis to arrive at a different conclusion regarding the percent of
the river that they consider impaired. In the example, a higher SV of 50 units results in
50% of the reach exceeding the SV. Confidence bounds can also be calculated for each
analyte's CDF.
Figure 1. Example of a cumulative distribution function (CDF) graph.
2. Screening for Levels of Concern
SVs are health-based tissue concentrations used to determine whether or not there
might be cause for concern for contaminants found in fish. SVs can vary greatly in the
amount of uncertainty they reflect. Some have regulatory significance and have gone
through rigorous peer review, while others are based on a limited amount of
toxicological information available in the literature. In this report we compare the tissue
concentrations to SVs determined by EPA and others to be indicative of levels of
concern, in order to provide context to our results. Finally, many of the chemicals we
analyzed do not have the information available to calculate SVs, thus the results and
discussion focus on those analytes that do.
50% of the reach exceeds the SV of
50 for Analyte X
70% o the river reach exceeds the SV of
25 for \nalyte X
100
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Analyte X
24
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Human health SVs
Human health SVs are derived based on two elements. First is the type of risk/effect.
Some contaminants pose an increased risk of cancer, while others have non-cancer
effects. These types of risk are discussed in detail in EPA's guidance on fish advisories
(USEPA 2000b). For carcinogens, SVs are based on specific risk levels. In this study,
we used SVs based on a risk level of one in a million (10~6).
The second element of human health SV calculations is the amount offish eaten. As
consumption rates increase, SVs become lower so a "safe" concentration to use as a
SV for concern depends on how much fish we assume people consume. Fish
consumption varies greatly among individuals. Studies in the basin revealed that local
tribal populations consume considerably more fish than the EPA national average
estimate used to calculate values of concern (CRITFC 1994, USEPA 2002). The States
have recognized these differences. Oregon has recently revised its water quality
standards taking into account a higher consumption rate, which reduces the tissue
concentrations that are considered safe for people to eat (ODEQ 2015). Washington
and Idaho are currently evaluating existing data and collecting new information to
determine what consumption rate to use as they revise their water quality criteria.
We use multiple SVs as comparisons to provide perspective on the extent of
contamination. Where possible, four SVs were calculated representing two effects (non-
carcinogenic and carcinogenic) at two consumption rates (referred to as "general
population" and "high consumers"). SV calculations were provided by Dave McBride,
Washington Department of Health, based on toxicity values from USEPA Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). For cancer effects, SV calculations were based on an excess cancer risk of 1
x 10~6. The two consumption rates are defined as follows:
"General population" rate = eight meals per month or two meals per week (assuming a
meal size is 8 ounces). This rate equates to 59.7 grams per day (Washington
Department of Health 2012) and is the amount offish the American Heart Association
recommends eating as part of a healthy diet.
"High consumer" rate = 175 g/day. This is the current rate (2013 revision) used in
Oregon's water quality standards, designed to protect people who consume more fish.
This rate is only slightly above EPA's subsistence level consumption rate of 142.4
grams per day (USEPA 2000b). In the 1994 CRITFC study, 175 g/day was
approximately the 95th percentile consumption rate of those surveyed (CRITFC 1994).
Finally, mercury has an additional SV of 300 ug/g based on a consumption rate of 17.5
g/day. This has been used commonly in the literature, so we include it in the discussion.
All SVs used in this assessment are shown in Table 5. Generally, the non-cancer SVs
are higher that the cancer SVs. This may seem counter-intuitive, however, the
differences are related to chronic versus acute exposure (USEPA 2000b).
25
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 5. Human health SVs used to evaluate MCR fillet fish tissue results. SVs for two effects levels with
two fish consumption rates. Units are all ng/g (ppb) fillet wet weight.
Analyte1
Cancer SV (ng/g ww)
Non-cancer SV (ng/g ww)
General population
High consumer
General population
High consumer
Mercury
-
-
120
40
4,4-DDD
4.886
1.667
-
-
4,4-DDE
3.449
1.177
-
-
4,4-DDT
3.449
1.177
-
-
DDT total
3.449
1.177
502.513
171.429
Aldrin
0.069
0.024
35.176
12.000
Chlordane total
3.350
1.143
586.265
200.000
Dieldrin
0.073
0.025
58.627
20.000
Heptachlor
0.261
0.089
586.265
200.000
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.129
0.044
15.243
5.200
Hexachlorobenzene
0.733
0.250
938.024
320.000
Endosulfan 1
-
-
7035.176
2400.000
Endosulfan II
-
-
7035.176
2400.000
Endosulfan sulfate
-
-
7035.176
2400.000
Endrin
-
-
351.759
120.000
alpha-BHC
0.186
0.064
-
-
beta-BHC
0.651
0.222
-
-
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
-
-
351.759
120.000
Methoxychlor
-
-
5862.647
2000.000
Mi rex
-
-
234.506
80.000
PCB total
0.586
0.200
-
-
PCB total-immun. effects
-
-
23.451
8.000
PCB total-develop, effects
-
-
30.151
10.286
PBDE-47
-
-
117.253
40.000
PBDE-99
-
-
117.253
40.000
PBDE-153
-
-
234.506
80.000
PBDE-209
1675.042
571.429
8207.705
2800.000
PBDE total
-
-
100.000
34.286
1. Dioxin/furan SVs not included as most results are non-detections for these analytes.
Ecological endpoint SVs
We used two different types of SVs for the eco-fish endpoints (Table 6).
General aquatic SVs are concentrations that, if not exceeded in fish tissue, indicate
contaminant concentrations that pose little or no unacceptable ecological risk to the fish
themselves. These SVs were designed to provide the same level of protection to
aquatic species that EPA's water quality criteria for aquatic life provide (i.e. protect 95%
of aquatic genera from adverse effects on survival, reproduction, and growth). We note
that the general aquatic SV are best looked at as simply a screen and exceedance does
26
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
not necessarily indicate a problem. It is also important to note that some of the metals
(Cu, Se, Zn) are also essential nutrients, so there are levels that are required by one
organism but which would be toxic to another at the same concentration. Methodology
for deriving these SVs is described in Dyer et al. 2000. These same methods were used
to calculate SVs for several other contaminants of interest using updated toxicological
information (Burt Shephard, USEPA, personal communication, 2014).
The second type of ecological endpoint SVs is intended to protect animals that
consume those fish, such as predatory fish, fish-eating wildlife, and fish-eating birds.
For contaminants that biomagnify as they move up the food chain (e.g., PCB, DDT, Hg,
chlordane) the wildlife SVs will be lower than the general aquatic SVs, because they are
based on diet. For other non-bioaccumulative contaminants, it will depend on the
relative sensitivity of the organism to that specific contaminant.
Kingfisher SVs intended for protecting this common piscivorous bird were available for
many of the analytes (Lazorchak et al. 2003). These SVs are based primarily on
USEPA guidance (USEPA 1995) that represented an EPA rulemaking involving
extensive peer review and a public comment response process. Thus for agency
consistency, Lazorchak et al. (2003) is viewed as an extension of this guidance from
water to fish tissue. SVs to protect kingfishers from PBDEs in prey fish were not
available. However, Environment Canada (2013) developed a PBDE SV for American
kestrel, another avian receptor. Mink and otter SVs for protection of these carnivorous
mustelids were available for several analytes (Lazorchak et al. 2003). Mustelid SVs are
the least conservative of the three ecological endpoints (Table 6).
27
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 6. Ecological endpoint SVs used to evaluate MCR whole body fish tissue results. Units are
(ppb) whole body wet weight (Source: Lazorchak et al. 2003, Dyer et al. 2000 as updated by B.
Shephard).
Analyte
General
aquatic
Kingfisher
Mink Otter General
wildlife
Arsenic
227
--
--
Cadmium
113
--
--
Chromium
4800
--
--
Copper
173
--
--
Lead
189
--
--
Mercury
60
30
70 100
Nickel
390
--
--
Selenium
560
--
--
Zinc
5688
--
--
2,4 DDD
--
20
--
2,4 DDE
--
20
--
2,4 DDT
--
20
--
4,4 DDD
54
20
--
4,4 DDT
54
20
--
4,4 DDE
54
20
--
DDTs total
54
20
360 490
Chlordane total
56
5
830 1140
Dieldrin
9
360
20 30
Hexachlorobenzene
31979
--
330
PCB total
440
440
130 180
PBDE total
--
ISfkestrel)1
32
1. Used kestrel as bird ecological endpoint for PBDEs (Source: Environment Canada 2013).
The Eco-fish trace element SVs are developed from testing of the toxic forms of these
metals/metalloids. For example, the inorganic form of arsenic (As+3 and As+5) and the
methylated fraction of mercury are toxic forms and these are the ones used in the
toxicity tests used to establish screening values. Toxic forms are a fraction of the total
concentration and the amount of the speciation of toxic forms is variable by chemical.
For example, marine species are estimated to have ~2% of arsenic concentrations as
inorganic, while the toxic form of mercury, methylmercury, can account for over 90% of
mercury concentration in freshwater predator fish species (Eislerl 988, USEPA 2006b).
The MCR fish samples were analyzed for the total concentration of each of the trace
elements (no speciation was analyzed). Therefore, application of some of the trace
element screens must be recognized as presenting relatively conservative results.
28
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
V.
A. Extent of Resource Represented by the Sampling
All of the probabilistic sites were accepted as being part of the sample frame and none
were rejected as being 'unsampleable' due to physical inaccessibility, safety issues, or
access denial. Therefore, the entire target population of 718 river km of the Mid-
Columbia is represented by the 42 sampled sites. Table 7 lists the river length
represented by sites in each State after applying the site weights. The weighting factor
compensates for the fact that the Washington sites were distributed over a longer
portion of the MCR reach than the Oregon sites. All 42 sites were sampled. Water
quality and habitat data were collected at all sites. HH-fish were not captured at one site
and Eco-fish were not captured at five sites.
Table 7. Summary of MCR sampling extent by State.
State
Sites
Site weight
Reach extent (rkm)
Oregon
23
11.2
258.3
Washington
19
24.2
460.2
Totals:
42
718.5
B. Extent of Fish Species Sampled
1. HH-fish
HH fish species were collected from 18 of the 19 sites in Washington, and from all 23 of
the probability sites in Oregon (Figure 2). In the upper portion of the survey reach,
largescale suckers (Catostomus macrocheilus) were the only sizeable resident fish
consumed by people that we were able to capture in sufficient numbers. This was a
lower priority species because largescale suckers are benthivorous (consume
periphyton and insect larva) rather than piscivorous, which was our preference (USEPA
2008b). Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) were consistently available in the
lower portion of the survey reach and were collected for tissue samples almost
exclusively from sites located in the lower half of Hanford Reach (Map 1) downstream.
Additional details describing HH fish composite samples are in Appendix 7.
29
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
largescale sucker
smallmouth bass
yellow perch
walleye
northern
pikeminnow
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent reach
Figure 2. MCR reach extent represented by the species sampled for HH-endpoint tissue with sample
counts.
2. Eco-fish
Eco-fish species were collected from 18 of the 19 probability sites in Washington, and
from 19 of 23 probability sites in Oregon for a total of 37 sites (Figure 3). Most
composite fish samples complied with the similar-size rule, although it was violated at
three sites. The maximum-size rule of 200 mm was also violated at three sites. Even
when the size rule was violated, fish were still small and the appropriate size for prey
items for wildlife. The largest fish sampled was 257mm (1 Oin) total length. Although
ODEQ did not record fish minimum and maximum length for the Eco-fish sample, all but
three were cottids, which are small fish, (<200 mm). The three non-cottid species
included in the sampling were northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis),
redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), and largescale sucker.
30
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
northern pikeminnow
Cottus sp.
largescale sucker
smallmouth bass
redside shiner
yellow perch
chiselmouth
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent reach
Figure 3. MCR extent represented by the species sampled for eco-endpoint tissue with sample counts.
Sculpin species (family Cottidae), northern pikeminnow, and largescale suckers
together represent 76% of the river length in the survey. The small-sized (juvenile)
northern pikeminnow and largescale suckers are more available as prey to other
species as they are larger and use a wide variety of the riverine habitat. In contrast,
sculpins are benthic and therefore not as readily available as a prey species for wildlife
and piscivores. Sculpins were therefore considered a lower priority species for this
study (USEPA 2008a). Sculpins were collected as the eco-endpoint species by ODEQ
at almost all of the Oregon sites, and represent approximately 28% of the river length in
the assessment. Details of Eco-fish composite samples by site are in Appendix 8.
C. Fish Tissue Results - Human Health Endpoints
Summary statistics for fillet tissue contaminants include results for all chemicals that
have sufficient data for calculating percentiles (< 45% of samples as non-detects).
Statistics were calculated using the weighing factors described above. The following
apply to these results:
All results reported as wet weight and expressed as mass of the chemical per
unit mass fish tissue in ng/g (ppb) for all chemicals.
For organic chemicals reported as not detected at the minimum detection limit
(MDL) we reported these as zero, although there is a possibility that the chemical
is present. This can result in biasing the summary statistics low. For metals, we
used the reporting limit values to represent the non-detects, so those summary
statistics may be biased high. The rationale for this is that metals do occur
naturally in water.
31
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
A number of the chemicals analyzed were not detected in any of the fillet
samples (e.g., dioxin/furans) and others were detected infrequently (e.g., aldrin,
endosulfan II, and delta- BHC). Percentiles were not calculated for these
chemicals that lack sufficient data needed for adequate resolution in a cumulative
distribution function.
Cumulative distribution functions (CDF) plots of chemical concentration (x-axis)
versus the cumulative percent of river kilometers (y-axis) from the sampled
population were generated for the commonly detected chemicals (Appendix 12).
These graphs show the 90% confidence bounds.
Chemicals with both sufficient data above the MDL and SVs available for comparison
are presented in greater detail in this section. These include mercury, DDTs, several
other chlorinated pesticides, total PCBs, and total PBDEs. R statistics software (version
3.1.1, R Core Team 2013) and the spsurvey package (Kincaid and Olsen 2015) were
used to estimate the percentiles and the cumulative distribution of tissue concentrations
for each analyte. Summary statistics are shown in Table 8 for the chemicals that have
SVs available for comparison. Results are compared to the SVs calculated for each of
the two consumption rates described above (Table 5). We calculated the percent of the
MCR extent that exceeded human health SVs by comparing each SV to the R output.
Using each SV as a cut-off, we reported the reach percentile corresponding to the
analyte quantity. Exceedances of the human health SVs are expressed as MCR reach
extent (rkm) percentiles (Table 9).
32
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 8. Summary statistics and percentile results for HH (fillet) analytes with available SVs, MCR (N=718
rkm).
HH-fish analytes
Min.
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Mean
Max.
S.E.of
%Non-
ng/g ww
Mean
detect1
Mercury
70
80
120
190
280
450
241
750
6
0
2,4 DDD
0.016
0.103
0.138
0.479
3.010
6.080
1.905
6.980
0.0855
0
2,4 DDE
0.020
0.043
0.081
0.201
0.761
1.500
0.520
1.770
0.0209
0
2,4 DDT
0.015
0.028
0.042
0.127
0.456
0.943
0.311
1.180
0.0127
0
4,4 DDD
0.189
0.703
1.350
3.770
20.100
43.600
13.217
47.200
0.5827
0
4,4 DDE
2.650
7.260
12.400
31.300
92.800
181.000
64.677
226.000
2.4939
0
4,4 DDT
0.099
0.166
0.280
1.010
4.080
8.290
2.676
11.100
0.1155
0
DDTs total2
3.191
8.316
15.039
43.621
117.108
234.375
83.306
289.553
3.2826
0
alpha-BHC
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.010
0.014
0.030
0.014
0.050
0.0004
0
beta-BHC
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.027
0.0002
20
Dieldrin
0.013
0.033
0.070
0.087
0.174
0.476
0.172
1.050
0.0082
0
Endosulfan 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.438
0.959
0.405
2.550
0.0245
46
Endosulfan sulfate
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.057
0.125
0.262
0.115
0.915
0.0076
41
Endrin
0.017
0.047
0.068
0.115
0.220
0.407
0.175
0.895
0.0067
0
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.000
0.004
0.005
0.008
0.013
0.018
0.010
0.037
0.0003
15
Heptachlor
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.015
0.005
0.021
0.0002
7
Heptachlor epoxide
0.003
0.006
0.014
0.024
0.044
0.101
0.039
0.152
0.0014
0
Hexachlorobenzene
0.103
0.122
0.155
0.239
0.394
0.733
0.337
1.120
0.0093
0
Methoxychlor
0.036
0.046
0.072
0.090
0.130
0.342
0.160
1.490
0.0100
0
Mi rex
0.003
0.005
0.007
0.014
0.026
0.048
0.018
0.050
0.0005
0
Chlordane total3
0.061
0.155
0.242
0.512
0.747
1.566
0.690
2.871
0.0263
0
PCB total4
1.372
2.638
5.297
12.409
28.844
70.827
20.985
85.266
0.8867
0
PBDE-047
0.327
0.663
1.690
5.080
7.890
15.600
6.449
34.600
0.2788
0
PBDE-099
0.035
0.054
0.099
0.222
0.375
1.160
0.410
1.780
0.0184
0
PBDE-153
0.016
0.036
0.045
0.070
0.119
0.239
0.108
0.425
0.0037
0
PBDE-209
0.000
0.076
0.099
0.136
0.223
0.248
0.171
1.280
0.0063
5
PBDE total5
0.800
1.295
2.779
7.328
10.963
21.368
9.278
47.957
0.3782
0
1. % Non-detect refers to percent of samples analyzed. 2. Total DDTs is the sum of the six analytes
3. Total chlordane is the sum of alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, oxychlordane, cis-nonachlor, and trans-nonachlor.
4. Total PCB is the sum of all 172 congeners analyzed. 5. Total PBDE is the sum of all 34 congeners analyzed.
33
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 9. Summary of human health (fillet) SV exceedances expressed as % MCR reach (N=718 rkm).
General Population
High Consumer
Analyte
SV (ng/g ww)
SV exceed
(% reach)
Std. error
SV (ng/g ww)
SV exceed
(% reach)
Std. error
Non-cancer risk type
Mercury1
120
74.2
6.7
40
100.0
3.9
DDTs total
502.513
0.0
0.0
171.429
17.4
5.6
PCBs total
(immune effects)
23.451
26.7
7.1
8.000
60.7
5.7
PCBs total
(devel. effects)
30.151
21.4
6.7
10.286
55.4
6.3
PBDEs total
100.000
0.0
0
34.286
3.6
3.1
Cancer risk type
4,4-DDD
4.886
44.8
6.4
1.667
67.1
4.9
4,4-DDE
3.449
94.9
3.2
1.177
100.0
0
4,4-DDT
3.449
31.1
6.3
1.177
46.5
6.5
DDTs total
3.449
94.9
3.2
1.177
100.0
0.0
Chlordane total
3.350
0.0
0.0
1.143
16.9
5.2
Dieldrin
0.073
66.9
5.4
0.025
91.7
3.8
Heptachlor epoxide
0.129
3.5
3.0
0.044
23.9
6.2
Hexachlorobenzene
0.733
8.6
4.5
0.250
46.5
6.5
PCBs total
0.586
100.0
3.1
0.200
100.0
3.2
1. The EPA mercury fish tissue residue criterion of 300 ng/g was exceeded in 23.9% of the reach.
1. Mercury
Mercury was detected in all fillet samples. The non-cancer risk general population SV
for mercury was exceeded in 74.2% of the river reach and the SV for high fish
consumers was exceeded in 100% of the river reach (Figure 4). A third SV is the
USEPA recommended fish tissue based water quality criterion of 300 ng/g (ppb)
mercury in fish tissue (USEPA 2001), which was exceeded in 23.9% of the reach
extent.
34
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
100
90
80
j= 70
u
(O
a) 60
4->
S 50
u
S 40
Q.
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Mercury concentration (ng/g ww)
Figure 4. CDF plot of mercury concentrations in fillet fish tissue, MCR reach (N=718).
2. DDT and Related Compounds
Summary statistics for DDT and its breakdown products in fillet tissue are shown in
Table 8 and CDFs with 90% confidence bounds are in Appendix 12. All six DDT
breakdown products were detected in all samples. Exceedances of cancer risk SVs for
total DDT for both consumption rates were ubiquitous (94.9% and 100%). Cancer risk
SV exceedances of the individual breakdown products are also generally widespread
(Figure 5). A non-cancer SV was available only for total DDT (sum of the six breakdown
products). This SV was not exceeded for the general population, but was exceeded for
the high fish consumption rate in 17.4% of the river reach.
120 ppb
Gen. Pop. S.V.
CDF estimate
¦ 90% Conf. Intervals
300 ppb
USEPAS.V.
35
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
100 -
80 -
sz
u
ro
£ 60 -
41
c
Q_
20 -
0
Total DDTs 4,4-DDE 4,4-DDD 4,4-DDT
DDT arialytes
Figure 5. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the DDT and DDT breakdown products human-health cancer
SVs in fillet tissue (N=718 rkm).
3. Chlorinated Pesticides
Summary statistics for other chlorinated pesticides in fillet tissue are shown in Table 8
and CDFs with confidence bounds are in Appendix 12. Some compounds such as
aldrin, endosulfan II, and delta- BHC were rarely detected and are therefore not
included in Table 8. Others such as heptachlor, endrin, and mirex, were widely
detected, but not at concentrations above the available SVs for the general population
and high consumers.
Four of the tested pesticides exceeded cancer risk SVs: total chlordane, dieldrin,
heptachlor epoxide, and hexachlorobenzene (Table 9 Figure 6). Dieldrin showed the
most widespread exceedance of the cancer risk SV, at approximately 66.9% and 91.7%
of the river reach for general population and high consumers, respectively. For high
consumers, the cancer SVs for heptachlor epoxide and hexachlorobenzene were
exceeded in 23.9% and 46.5% of the river reach, respectively. The same pesticides
exceeded the risk SV for the general population consumption rate in only 3.5% and
8.6% of the reach. Total chlordane (sum of alpha chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-
nonachlor and oxychlordane -transchlordane is not part of this data set) exceeded the
high consumer SV in 16.9% of the reach. None of the pesticides analyzed exceeded the
non-cancer risk SVs.
¦ High consumers
General population
36
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
¦ High consumers
SS General population
Chlordane (total) Dieldrin Heptachor epoxide Hexachloro-benzene
Chlorinated pesticide analytes
Figure 6. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the four chlorinated pesticides human health cancer SVs in
fillet tissue (N=718 rkm).
4. Dioxins and Furans
Eighteen dioxins and furans were analyzed but were all very rare in the fillet samples.
(Table 10). Individual analytes that have SVs were not detected.
Table 10. List of Human health (fillet) dioxins and furans included in MCR analysis.
Analyte
%Non-
detect1
Analyte
%Non-
detect1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
98
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
98
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
95
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
98
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
98
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
98
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
98
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
98
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
98
2,3,7,8-Substituted Dioxin/Furans
73
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
98
2,3,7,8-TCDD
100
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
98
2,3,7,8-TCDF
76
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
98
OCDD
90
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
98
OCDF
98
1. Summary statistics were calculated with non-detects set to zero. 'Non-detect percent observations' refers to the percent of
samples analyzed.
37
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
5. PCBs
PCB analysis included 172 congeners (Appendix 5). All fillet samples contained
measurable PCBs. Summary statistics for 107 PCBs congeners that were commonly
detected in the fillet tissue samples are in (Appendix 9) and CDFs with confidence
bounds are in Appendix 12. Forty-five PCB congeners were relatively less common in
the samples (detected in <45% of the samples) and 20 congeners were not detected in
any sample (Appendix 10).
The only PCB SVs available are for 'total' PCBs for cancer risk and for two types of non-
cancer risk at both consumption rates (Table 9). We compared these SVs to the
calculated sum of all PCBs that the lab analyzed. The total PCB cancer risk SVs for
both the general population and high consumers were exceeded for the entire MCR.
The screening level for PCB immune effects is slightly lower than that for developmental
effects, but both of those non-cancer risk types were exceeded for the general
population in 26.7% and 21.4% of the river length, and for the high consumers in 60.7
and 55.4% of the river length. These exceedances are compared in Figure 7.
cancer
¦ High consumers S3 General population
non-cancer
immune effects
non-cancer
developmental effects
Total PCBs SV types
Figure 7. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the total PCBs cancer and non-cancer SVs in fillet tissue
(N=718 rkm).
6. PBDEs
Fillet samples were analyzed for 34 PBDE congeners (Appendix 4). Summary statistics
for the common PBDEs (detected in > 45% of samples) are in Appendix 9 and CDFs
with confidence bounds are in Appendix 12. Ten PBDE analytes were not detected in a
majority of samples and CDFs were not generated for those (PBDE 119, 126, 138, 171,
180, 191, 196, 201, 203, 207).
38
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Human health SVs are available for 'total' PBDEs and four congeners (PBDE 47, 99,
153, and 209) (Table 9). As with total PCBs, the total PBDEs SV was compared to the
sum of all detected PBDEs found in the samples. The PBDEs with SVs were widely
detected, but SV exceedances were minimal (Figure 8). Only the non-cancer high-
consumption SV for total PBDEs was exceeded in an estimated 3.6% of the Mid-
Columbia.
34.3 ppb High cons,
non-cancer S.V.
Total PBDEs (ng/g ww)
Figure 8. CDF plot of total PBDEs in fillet fish tissue, MCR reach (N=718).
D. Fish Tissue Results- Ecological Endpoints
As with fillet samples, fish tissue data for whole fish samples are described using
summary statistics for the entire MCR (Table 11). As noted in the methods, we replaced
non-detects with zeros for organic chemicals data analysis (as in the EMAP estuary
study). This can result in biasing summary statistics low. For metals, which occur
naturally in water, we used the reporting limit values to replace zeros, so statistics may
be biased high for lead and zinc. Most analytes are reported in ng/g wet weight except
metals (pg/g wet weight). SVs were available for 21 of the ecological endpoint analytes
(Table 6). Twelve analytes exceeded one or more SV over some portion of the MCR
reach (Table 12). CDF plots with 90% confidence bounds were generated for the
commonly detected chemicals (Appendix 13).
39
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 11. Summary statistics and percentile results for Eco-fish tissue (whole body), MRC (N=718 rkm).
Analyte
Units
Min.
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Mean
Max.
S.E. of
Mean
%ND1
Arsenic
Hg/g ww
0.033
0.042
0.073
0.140
0.231
0.289
0.152
0.384
0.004
0
Cadmium
Hg/g ww
0.004
0.012
0.015
0.025
0.045
0.063
0.032
0.083
0.001
0
Chromium
Mg/g ww
0.083
0.101
0.168
0.235
0.320
0.359
0.258
0.865
0.006
0
Copper
Hg/g ww
0.503
0.661
0.777
0.974
1.501
2.360
1.330
4.298
0.037
0
Lead
Hg/g ww
0.036
0.044
0.047
0.050
0.062
0.212
0.105
0.831
0.006
65
Mercury
Hg/g ww
0.013
0.019
0.023
0.031
0.045
0.060
0.037
0.118
0.001
0
Nickel
Mg/g ww
0.019
0.034
0.086
0.330
0.500
2.047
0.625
5.971
0.046
5
Selenium
Hg/g ww
0.103
0.314
0.345
0.374
0.488
0.550
0.412
0.732
0.004
0
Zinc
Hg/g ww
12.080
13.882
15.694
19.067
26.394
32.375
21.221
32.804
0.260
0
2,4' DDD
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.225
0.954
2.032
4.256
1.332
5.436
0.058
32
2,4' DDE
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.200
0.521
1.092
1.710
0.658
2.016
0.024
32
2,4' DDT
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.253
0.337
0.707
0.276
1.232
0.010
38
4,4' DDD
ng/g ww
0.316
1.665
2.509
9.658
18.987
32.905
12.789
41.720
0.470
0
4,4' DDE
ng/g ww
2.811
13.365
19.804
49.273
106.701
163.740
71.218
231.219
2.505
0
4,4' DDT
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.175
0.598
1.127
1.527
0.688
2.131
0.023
16
Total DDTs2
ng/g ww
3.127
15.628
22.871
59.411
130.945
207.075
86.962
269.757
2.993
0
Dieldrin
ng/g ww
0.000
0.284
0.328
0.526
0.650
1.012
0.567
1.827
0.012
3
HCBenzene
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.325
0.491
0.627
0.870
0.499
1.584
0.012
8
T_Nonachlor
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.268
0.404
0.688
1.061
0.591
3.924
0.029
8
A_Chlordane
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.176
0.377
0.551
0.378
5.089
0.037
32
G_Chlordane
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.171
0.244
0.161
2.338
0.017
43
Oxychlordane
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.152
0.196
0.253
0.191
2.458
0.018
43
Chlordane
total3
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.280
0.634
1.372
2.065
1.357
14.640
0.106
8
PCB-052
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.373
0.448
0.690
1.245
0.560
2.143
0.020
22
PCB-066
ng/g ww
0.000
0.265
0.348
0.471
0.795
1.134
0.611
2.695
0.020
8
PCB-077
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.233
0.417
0.717
0.301
3.690
0.021
41
PCB-101
ng/g ww
0.000
0.646
0.776
1.694
2.437
3.255
1.849
5.497
0.049
3
PCB-105
ng/g ww
0.000
0.181
0.262
0.383
0.852
1.180
0.548
1.871
0.017
5
PCB-118
ng/g ww
0.498
0.809
1.050
1.453
2.685
3.649
1.878
6.085
0.050
0
PCB-128
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.227
0.323
0.546
0.853
0.394
1.297
0.012
14
PCB-138
ng/g ww
1.303
1.713
2.313
3.109
3.995
4.877
3.349
9.010
0.061
0
PCB-153
ng/g ww
0.691
1.211
1.519
2.050
3.175
4.230
2.439
6.950
0.052
0
PCB-170
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.269
0.357
0.521
0.224
0.721
0.008
46
PCB-180
ng/g ww
0.000
0.396
0.455
0.638
0.879
1.544
0.846
4.142
0.027
3
PCB-187
ng/g ww
0.000
0.302
0.359
0.537
0.756
1.121
0.623
1.791
0.014
3
PCBs total4
ng/g ww
3.600
5.868
8.591
11.869
18.148
26.593
13.912
36.598
0.303
0
PBDE-047
ng/g ww
0.000
3.019
3.600
4.527
5.975
9.363
5.157
13.509
0.102
3
PBDE-100
ng/g ww
0.000
0.000
0.542
0.834
1.277
1.889
0.914
3.176
0.025
19
PBDEs total5
ng/g ww
0.542
3.528
4.406
5.253
7.408
11.208
6.227
16.685
0.123
0
1. % Non-detect refers to percent of samples analyzed. 2. DDT Total is the sum of the six analytes. 3. Total chlordane is the sum
of alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, oxychlordane, cis-nonachlor, and trans-nonachlor concentrations. 4.Total PCB is the
sum of the concentration of 21 congeners analyzed. 5. Total PBDE is the sum of the concentration of 8 congeners analyzed.
40
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 12. Eco-fish tissue (whole body) SV exceedances expressed as % MCR reach (N=718 rkm).
General Aquatic
Kingfisher
Mink
Otter
Analyte
SV
reach
Std.
SV
reach
Std.
SV
reach
Std.
SV
reach
Std.
(ng/g)
(%)
error
(ng/g)
(%)
error
(ng/g)
(%)
Error
(ng/g)
(%)
error
Arsenic2
227
24.8
4.15
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Copper
173
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Lead
189
12.9
5.17
--
--
--
--
--
--
Mercury
60
6.9
2.64
30
48.9
6.88
70
5.2
2.57
100
1.7
1.50
Nickel
390
37.3
6.82
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Selenium
560
9.2
4.63
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Zinc
5688
100.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
4,4 DDD
54
0.0
20
18.7
5.01
--
--
--
--
--
--
4,4 DDE
54
44.5
5.94
20
73.2
4.37
--
--
--
--
--
--
DDTs total
54
55.7
5.03
20
85.6
4.14
360
0.0
490
0.0
Chlordane
total
56
0.0
5
3.7
3.14
830
0.0
1140
0.0
PBDEs total
--
--
--
131
5.5
3.46
32
0.0
--
--
--
1. Kestrel as avian ecological endpoint for PBDEs (Source: Environment Canada 2013).
2. Arsenic SV calculated from inorganic fraction while results are total arsenic thus exceedence is an overestimate
1. Inorganics- Mercury and Trace Metals/metalloids
General aquatic SVs for copper and zinc were exceeded in the entire reach. Several
other trace elements exceeded their SVs in a smaller percentage of the river (Table 12,
Figure 9). Besides the general aquatic SV, we used three other mercury SVs from the
literature for comparison (Table 6). Exceedances of these wildlife SVs are shown in
Figure 10. The most stringent of the wildlife SVs is the one for the kingfisher, which is
exceeded in almost half of the MCR reach. As discussed in the methods, the SV for
arsenic is conservative because it is generated using only inorganic forms (As+3 and
As+5) while the MCR tissue data is the total arsenic concentration. Thus, the
exceedance is likely higher than if speciation data were available for comparison.
41
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
100.0
100.0
37.3
1
9.2
Arsenic Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Zinc
Trace element analytes
Figure 9. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the trace element general aquatic SVs in whole-fish tissue
(N=718 rkm).
100
80 ¦
u
(O
CD
£
CD
CD
Q.
20 ¦
48.9
I
1
1.7
Kingfisher
General aquatic Mink
Mercury SV types
Otter
Figure 10. Percent of MCR reach exceeding four mercury SVs in whole-fish tissue (N=718 rkm).
2. DDTs
Summary statistics for DDT and breakdown products in whole fish samples are shown
in Table 11 and CDFs with confidence bounds are in Appendix 13. All samples
contained DDT and exceedances of SVs were widespread, especially for the most
stringent kingfisher SV (Table 12, Figure 11).
42
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
85.6
Total DDTs
73.2
4_4_DDE
DDT arialytes
General aquatic
Kingfisher
18.7
4 4 DDD
Figure 11. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the DDT SVs in whole fish tissue (N=718 rkm).
3, Chlorinated Pesticides
Besides DDTs, 17 other chlorinated pesticides were analyzed (Table 11). Of these,
detection rates ranged from zero for aldrin and heptachlor to 97% for dieldrin, SVs were
available for total chlordane, dieldrin and hexachlorobenzene (Table 6). The only SV
exceeded was the kingfisher SV (5 ng/g ww) for total chlordane, in 3.7% of the MCR
reach (Figure 12).
43
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CD
Q.
¦ CDF estimate
¦90% Conf. Inter.
5 ng/g
kingfisher S.V.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Total chlordane (ng/g ww)
Figure 12. CDF plot of total chlordane concentrations in whole fish tissue, MCR reach (N=718 rkm).
4. PCBs
All but 4 of the 21 PCB congeners analyzed were detected in whole fish samples
(Appendix 11) and several were commonly present in the Mid-Columbia Eco-fish (Table
11). Total PCBs were calculated (sum of all PCB analytes) and compared to the
available total PCB SVs for general aquatic life, otter, mink, and kingfisher (Table 6).
None of these total PCBs SVs were exceeded. The CDF for total PCB is shown in
Figure 13.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CDF estimate
90% Conf. Inter.
0 2 4 6
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Total PCBs (ng/g ww)
Figure 13. CDF plot of total PCBs concentration in whole fish tissue, MCR (N=718 rkm).
44
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
5. PBDEs
Eight PBDE congeners were analyzed in Eco-fish tissue: 47, 66, 99, 100, 138, 153, 154,
and 183 (Appendix 11). Only congeners 47 and 100 were commonly detected and five
of the eight were not detected in any samples. Summary statistics for these and total
PBDE are in Table 11. We compared total PBDEs to the two wildlife SVs available for
total PBDE; kestrel at 13 ng/g and mink at 32 ng/g. Only the kestrel SV was exceeded
in 5.5 % of the MCR reach (Table 12, Figure 14).
13 ng/g
^ kestrel S.V.
Total PBDE (ng/g ww)
Figure 14. CDF plot of total PBDE concentration in whole fish tissue, MCR (N=718 rkm).
45
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
VI. Discussion
A. Relative Extent of Contaminants of Concern (COCs)
We used screening value comparisons to synthesize the Mid-Columbia results.
Although screen exceedances do not necessarily mean there is a problem, they are
useful for signaling possible concerns, communicating results, and making comparisons
between studies. Results of this analysis fell into four types of outcomes: 1) analytes
that proved to be COCs in the MCR (SVs exceeded), 2) analytes that are not of concern
in the MCR (SVs not exceeded), 3) analytes that are prevalent in tissue samples but
cannot be evaluated at the present time due to lack of HH or ECO benchmarks (no SV
available), and 4) analytes that were so rare that they were not quantified as COCs.
1) Many of the analytes are well known as human and wildlife contaminants. They have
been sufficiently studied and have established SVs useable as benchmarks for
comparison. The results of these particular analytes can therefore be quantified and can
be placed in order of extend of Mid-Columbia reach that exceeds a particular SV (i.e.
relative ranking). For human health, PCBs, DDTs, and mercury are the contaminants
that exceed their SVs in the greatest percentage of the MCR, all >70% of the reach
(Figure 15). This high ranking is consistent regardless of the consumption rate used-
both high consumers and the general population. Several other pesticides are COCs in
the MCR but to a lesser extent (chlordane, hexachloro-benzene, and heptachlor
epoxide). PBDEs are the lowest ranked of the human health COCs identified in the
reach.
46
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Human health COCs--non-cancer risk
Mercury
PCBs
(immune)
PCBs
(devel.)
DDTs
PBDEs
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent reach
Human health COCs-cancer risk
PCBs
DDTs
Dieldrin
Hexachloro-
benzene
Heptachlor
epoxide
Chlordane
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent reach
Figure 15. Exceedances of Human Health SVs, cancer and non-cancer with 90% confidence bounds.
For wildlife, copper and zinc are ubiquitous COCs (Figure 16). Mercury is moderately
prevalent while the other trace elements are less so. Since the chemicals analyzed vary
between the HH and Eco-fish tissue samples, differences in COCs identified and their
relative ranking are expected. For example, trace elements were not tested in HH- fish
tissue and the list of PCB analytes is very limited for Eco-fish tissue (21) compared to
HH-fish tissue (172). However, we do see consistency between ranking of HH and Eco-
fish COCs (Figure 15 and Figure 16). DDT and mercury are extensive COCs for both
S High consumers
¦ General population
~ High consumers
¦ General population
47
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
tissue types, while chlordane and PBDEs COCs are limited in extent for both (< 10% of
reach exceeding SVs).
2) The second type of result was for chemicals with SVs that did not exceed the SV for
any proportion of the reach. For human health tissue, twelve pesticide analytes had low
sample concentrations or had a substantial number of non-detects. We also compared
results to four individual PBDE congener SVs (PBDE-47, -99, -153, and -209). These
SVs were not exceeded, however, PBDE-47 was commonly detected and had relatively
high concentrations. PBDE-47 and PBDE-99 are considered the predominant
congeners in fish tissue (USEPA 201 Ob, Stahl et al. 2013).
Ecological COCs
Copper
Zinc
DDTs
Nickel
Arsenic
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
PBDEs
Chlordane
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent reach
Figure 16. SV exceedence for Eco fish analytes, with 90% confidence bounds.
Eco-fish tissue SVs were available for all of the trace elements tested. Of these, only
cadmium and chromium were not identified as COCs (Figure 16). These two metals
were commonly detected but concentrations were well below the SVs in all samples.
Likewise, the pesticides dieldrin and hexachlorobenzene were detected in most
samples yet concentrations were well below SVs. PCB congeners were detected in all
Eco-fish samples yet total PCB, the only available SV, was not considered a COC as
concentrations were well below even the most stringent total PCB SV (mink). Note that
the number of PCB congeners analyzed in Eco-fish tissue was limited compared to HH-
~ Kingfisher/Kestrel
¦ General aquatic
48
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
fish (21 versus 172). Thus, far fewer analyte results were used to calculate total PCBs
for Eco-fish tissue versus HH-fish.
3) The third type of result was for chemicals that do not have screening values for
comparison but appear to be prevalent in the MCR reach. Overall, we were able to
apply SVs to almost all analytes for both for Eco and HH-fish. Those that did not have
an individual SV were covered as part of one of the summation type SVs (total
chlordane, total PCBs, total PBDEs).
4) The last result type is chemicals that were rarely detected. The chemicals included in
this study are known contaminants and have known presence in the MCR basin.
Therefore, we had suspected that these would be measurable in our samples. We had
detections for all categories tested except for dioxins/furans. Eighteen of these
chemicals were analyzed in HH-fish tissue. These were rarely detected with most only
detected in about 2% of the reach extent. All 18 had high percentages of non-detected
values (73-100%).
B. Comparisons to Other Mainstem Columbia Results
The contaminants included in this study vary in their signature on the landscape. Some
of the contaminants, such as mercury, are known to circulate in the atmosphere from
global sources, while others, such as DDTs, have more local sources. In order to
understand how the MCR fits into a larger context, results were compared to other
Columbia River fish toxics studies. Overall, comparisons are challenging due to
differences in design, parameters, fish species, and tissue types. Only one study
conducted in the lower Columbia (Hayslip et al. 2007) had similar objectives and design
with results that were directly comparable. Other substantial/comprehensive Columbia
River fish tissue studies in the Hanford Reach (DOE 2012) and the upper Columbia
(Exponent/Parametrics 2013) focus on risk assessment and characterizing the effect of
particular impacts yet had some comparable elements. Finally, WA state monitoring
efforts have generated fish tissue data from the upper and mid portions of the Columbia
River.
1. Lower Columbia River: reach-wide Eco-fish study (Hayslip et al. 2007)
The Lower Columbia River, LCR from here on, is the adjacent downstream reach to the
MCR, from Bonneville Dam to the mouth. Unlike the MCR, this reach is tidally
influenced and includes a significant estuarine area. The LCR differs substantially in
terms of land use. There are two urban centers, Portland, Oregon and Vancouver,
Washington as well as numerous smaller towns along the LCR. In addition, a
substantial amount of industrial land is adjacent to this portion of the river. Hayslip et al.
(2007) quantified fish toxic COCs using a probabilistic design similar to this MCR
assessment. Data were collected 1999-2000 from 79 sites distributed in the freshwater,
saline, and estuarine portions of the LCR. Eco-fish whole tissue from flatfish and
perciform target species was analyzed for trace elements, DDT and other persistent
chlorinated pesticides, and PCBs. Results were reported as percent total area (611
sq.km) instead of percent river length because the estuary was included. We compared
49
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
SV exceedance results between the two reaches based on Hayslip et al. (2007). We
note that the fish species are different between the two studies, thus these comparisons
are qualified.
We applied the same Eco-fish SVs (Table 6) to the LCR toxic concentration results to
estimate exceedances comparable to our results (Figure 16). For trace elements, there
were clear differences for arsenic and nickel (Figure 17). Arsenic exceedances of Eco-
fish SV were substantially less in the MCR compared to the LCR (25% versus ~50%).
Nickel was substantially more prevalent in the MCR compared to the LCR where it was
rarely detected in Eco-fish (87% non-detects). Results were relatively consistent
between the two reaches for the other seven trace elements. There were slight
differences in exceedances (<10%) between the two reaches for cadmium, lead,
mercury, and selenium, and exceedances were identical for chromium (0%) and copper
and zinc (100%).
Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Mercury Selenium Zinc DDT
Analytes common to MCR and LCR
Figure 17. Comparison of MCR (N=718 rkm) and LCR (N= 611 sq.km) percent exceedances of the general
aquatic SV in whole-fish tissue for eight analytes (Source: Hayslip et al. 2007).
Total DDT exceedances were more prevalent in the MCR than in the LCR (56% rkm,
S.E. 5.03 versus 41% sq.km). Both studies reported on three other pesticides, total
chlordane, hexachlorobenzene, and dieldrin. The chlordane and hexachlorobenzene
results are consistent, being below the SVs in both studies. Dieldrin results were similar
with no exceedance in MCR and minor exceedances in the LCR (1%). All three of these
chemicals had low detection frequencies in the LCR study (8-16%).
Total PCB data for Eco-fish is comparable between the two studies as both analyzed
the same 21 PCB congeners. The MCR had no total PCB exceedance for Eco-fish.
LCR reach exceedances of the 440 ng/g SV appear minor based on summary statistics
50
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
provided (mean, min, median, max of 52, 2, 17, and 691 ng/g ww, respectively, in
Hayslip et al. 2007). Overall, these results show consistency in trace elements, as
expected. DDTs have a long history of use in the agricultural areas of the MCR so
higher concentrations in the MCR compared to the LCR would be expected. Likewise,
we would expect higher PCB concentrations in fish tissue in the lower reach due to
more urban and industrial land uses.
2. Lower Columbia River: select sites HH fish study (Nilsen et al. 2014)
Nilsen et al. (2014) analyzed HH-fish tissue contaminant concentrations in the LCR as
part of a food web study. They collected largescale sucker fillet composites (15 fish
each) from three sites spaced along the LCR in 2009. Analytes that were common
between this LCR study and MCR were DDTs and several other persistent pesticides,
PCBs, and PBDEs. Although these data do not statistically represent the entire LCR
reach, results are useful for general comparisons to the MCR results.
Comparing Nilsen et al. (2014) results to the HH-fish SVs for cancer (Table 5) and the
MCR summary statistics (Appendix 9), we conclude the following:
1) These LCR HH-fish results were similar to the MCR in that all three sites exceeded
the SVs for total DDT and total PCBs (Table 13). The concentrations were generally
lower than the MCR. All three sites were below the MCR total DDT and total PCB
median values of 43.6 ng/g ww and 12.4 ng/g ww, respectively.
2) Total PBDEs at the two lower sites were similar to the high end of the range of values
in the MCRT (90th percentile), while the upper Skamania site was below the range of
MCR values.
3) LCR sites were similar to the MCR median values for chlordane and HCB. Dieldrin
was not detected in the LCR but was common in the MCR HH fish (detected in all
samples).
Table 13. Chemical concentrations (ng/g ww) in largescale sucker fillet tissue composites from three LCR
sites (Source: Nilsen et al. 2014).
Site Name
Chlordane
Dieldrin
hexachloro-benzene
Total DDT
Total PCB
Total PBDE
Skamania (upper)
0.687
ND
0.300
23.0
4.61
0.416
Columbia City (mid)
0.477
ND
0.286
27.0
6.67
21.2
Longview (lower)
0.610
ND
0.347
28.2
10.4
21.6
Bold values indicate exceedance of HH-fish general population cancer SV.
3. Mid-Columbia River: select sites HH fish study (Washington Department of Ecology)
Seiders et al. (2015) analyzed skin-on fillet samples from 54 fish collected from six
handpicked sites within the upper portion of the Mid-Columbia reach (Wanapum Dam
near Vantage upstream to Grand Coulee Dam). This study is marginally comparable
due to numerous differences including design, reach length, tissue preparation, and
species. For 4,4' DDE, the Washington report summary statistics indicate that
concentrations are higher than our MCR reach-wide results. The mean and maximum
51
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
values are substantially higher in these sites and the 50th and 90th percentiles were both
higher than the confidence intervals of the MRC. The difference in reach length would
be a factor, as the MCR reach includes a substantial reach that is less influenced by
agricultural land use. Also, species differences are a likely factor. The Washington State
study included some carp samples which were highest in contaminant concentrations
for DDE. We did not include any carp in our analysis. Also, fillet samples were
processed skin on by Ecology as compared to no skin in this MCR study.
One interesting comparison is that of longitudinal patterns in tissue concentrations.
Seiders et al. (2015) noted a pattern of relatively low concentrations of 4,4' DDE in the
two sites above the confluence of the Okanogan River. Concentrations were relatively
higher at the two sites below the confluence, then diminishing in the lower two sites
near Wenatchee. They observed a similar yet weaker pattern for PCBs and PBDE for
various species. A State Fish Advisory was issued in 2011 for the Okanogan River for
DDT in common carp (Table 1). In the MCR data, we noted a similar pattern for total
DDTs in Eco-fish samples (Figure 18). Our Eco-fish concentrations were relatively low
at the three sites upstream of the Okanogan confluence, sharply higher at sites below
the Okanogan confluence, and then progressively lower downstream. Sites below
Vernita Bridge were relatively low compared to the upper sites. This pattern was similar
but less distinct for our HH-fish (fillet) samples. We did explore the data for reach-wide
spatial patterns for all other analytes. None showed a clear pattern as seen in the total
DDT and 4,4' DDE data.
52
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Ctf)
c
o
o
"ro
+-<
o
300
250
200
150
100
50
Rock Is.
Chelan
Daroga
i
Goose
Pumpstation
Crescent Bar
Wind Mtn
Vernita
Bridge
Drano
Lake
SV = 54 ppbs^
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
site order (up to downstream)
Figure 18. Total DDTs concentrations in Eco-fish composite samples at each sample site, MCR.
4. Mid-Columbia River: select sites HH and Eco fish study Hanford Reach
The Hanford Project Area is located in the Washington portion of the MCR. This reach
has been studied extensively to support environmental remediation of the US
Department of Energy's Hanford Site (DOE 2012). Fish tissue analysis has been
conducted in this reach to determine human health and ecological risk related to the
disposal of hazardous wastes. Extensive sampling took place during 2009-2010. They
collected a variety of species (common carp, mountain whitefish, walleye, smallmouth
bass, bridgelip sucker, and white sturgeon) from sites above and below the Hanford
facility, extending from McNary Dam upstream to Wanapum Dam (Map 2). The samples
collected above Priest Rapids Dam were used to represent the un-impacted condition
for comparison to the impacted portion of the reach. Both HH and Eco-fish tissue
samples (fillets and whole fish) were analyzed for metals, pesticides and PCB
congeners.
Fillet (skin-on) analysis showed PCBs, organochlorine pesticides (DDTs and others),
and several trace elements (As, Ad, Co, Li, Hg, Se, U, Z, and Zn) were elevated in fillet
composites and exceeded human health SVs. They concluded that the mercury and
PCB concentrations were consistent with concentrations from reference sites sampled
53
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
above the facility. Likewise, organochlorine pesticides were similar to the reference sites
and concentrations were attributed to agricultural applications rather than from the
Hanford Facility. In comparison with ecological SVs, the greatest number and
magnitude of exceedances in Hanford Eco-fish tissue were for cadmium, copper,
selenium, and zinc. They concluded that these exceedances were not believed to be
site-related contaminants.
PCBs were also studied, because this site was known to have use of equipment and
practices associated with these pollutants (Hermann 2007 as in Delistraty 2013). Fillet
mean total PCBs ranged from 270 ng/g ww (n=29) at the upper site to 130 ng/g ww
(n=31) at the lowest site (Delistraty 2013). These values were not significantly different
among locations. The mean values reported at all four sites were substantially higher
than the range of values in this MCR reach-wide study, which ranged from min 1.4 ng/g
to 85.3 ng/g (median 12.4 ng/g). We note the sites with the highest total PCBs in our
data set are in the vicinity of the Hanford facility (from two sites near Vernita Bridge area
below Priest Rapids Dam and the site just above the Snake River confluence).
Washington Department of Health will be issuing a fish consumption advisory for the
Hanford reach in 2017, which will restrict consumption of all resident fish species
primarily due to PCB concentrations (David McBride, WDOH, pers. comm., Feb. 2017).
5. Upper Columbia River: select sites HH and Eco-fish tissue risk assessment
The Upper Columbia River (UCR from here on) is the adjacent upstream reach that
extends from Grand Coulee Dam upstream to the Canadian border, about 150 river
miles. This reach is being studied as part of a remedial investigation into environmental
impacts from a metal smelter in British Columbia. It addresses questions specific to risk
assessment and clean-up/disposal of hazardous wastes (Exponent/Parametrix 2013,
USEPA 2007). Fish were collected in 2005 and 2009 from six handpicked locations.
Species sampled included yellow perch, kokanee, walleye, whitefish, burbot,
smallmouth bass, rainbow trout, and largescale suckers. Both HH and Eco-fish
endpoints were analyzed for many analytes including potential smelter-related metals,
mercury, dioxins/furans, and PCBs. "Comparison values" or CVs, were developed for
both humans and ecological receptors, and exceedance ratios were calculated. The
metals that most often exceeded CVs were total Hg, As, Se, Cr, Cu, Zn, Al, Pb, and Cd.
PCBs and dioxins/furans also exceeded CVs.
Incompatibility of study designs and data synthesis methods limits the depth of
comparisons between the two studies. However, it is interesting to qualitatively compare
results. General conclusions of the UCR study were; 1) mercury was detected in all
species and concentrations increase significantly in a downstream direction, 2) PCBs
are widespread and total PCB concentrations were similar across species, and 3) slag-
related metals, especially zinc, were elevated in various fish, particularly in the most
upstream reaches.
The MCR results are consistent with these UCR findings in that PCBs and mercury are
widespread and are present at levels of concern. DDT is consistently higher in the
MCR. Mean DDT was an order of magnitude greater for the MCR (83.3 ng/g HH and
54
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
59.4 ng/g ECO) than the UCR (7.6 ng/g HH and 4.4 ng/g Eco-fish) (Exponent/
Parametrix 2013).
Also, several Eco-fish trace element SVs were exceeded with copper and zinc
concentrations high for the entire MCR reach. Looking at individual sites, we note that
sites in the extreme upper end of the MCR study reach (top 3-5 sites) had relatively
higher Eco-fish concentrations for nickel, copper, and lead relative to the rest of the
sites sampled. Finally, zinc concentrations in the upper reaches from Okanogan River
confluence to Vernita Bridge were higher than the lower sample sites. Again, these are
qualitative comparisons based on a single Eco-fish composite for each of the MCR
sites.
C. Comparisons to Other Regions
1. Mid-continent Large Rivers: reach-wide HH and Eco fish study
The 2010 study of three great rivers of the mid-continent assessed fish tissue for toxics
(Blocksom et al. 2010). They used a probability design comparable to the one used in
this MCR study where sites were randomly selected so that results could be
extrapolated to un-sampled sites and reported at a reach-wide scale for the Upper and
Lower Missouri River, upper free flowing Mississippi River (above Ohio River
confluence), upper impounded Mississippi, and the Ohio River. Both large and small
fish were collected in 2004-2005 from these five reaches. Whole fish tissue was
analyzed for mercury, legacy organochlorines (chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin), PCBs (20
congeners), and PBDEs (6 congeners). Small-sized whole fish were the ecological
endpoint. Large-sized whole fish were analyzed as the human health end-point
(conversion factors were used to estimate fillet concentrations). We focus our
comparisons on small whole fish for the Eco-fish endpoint. Note some comparisons
were not possible because both large and small whole body fish results were combined
in some of the Blocksom et al. (2010) analyses while our MCR study only had small
whole body fish samples.
For pesticides, there are similarities between the MCR and the Great Rivers (Blocksom
et al. 2010). DDT, chlordane, and dieldrin, were detected in most samples in both
studies. However, the pesticides of highest concern vary between the two studies. In
the MCR, the mean DDT reach-wide value is an order of magnitude higher than in the
Great Rivers reaches (Table 14). Also, MCR Eco-fish chlordane and dieldrin reach
mean concentrations are lower than the Great Rivers reach means. In the MCR, DDT is
the most extensive pesticide COC (Figure 16) while in the Great Rivers chlordane
poses the greater risk to wildlife (Blocksom et al. 2010).
55
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table 14. Comparison of small whole fish mean chemical concentrations (ng/g ww) for five Mid-
continent large river reaches from Blocksom et al. (2010) and the MCR mean reported at reach-scale.
Standard error of mean in parens.
River reach
DDT total
Dieldrin
Chlordane
PCB total
PBDE total
total
Upper Mississippi
6.57 (0.37)
3.10
(0.18)
2.31 (0.23)
19.67 (0.93)
5.31 (0.39)
Impounded Mississippi
6.54(0.37)
2.66
(0.11)
1.39 (0.14)
7.41 (0.84)
4.43 (0.28)
Missouri
5.47 (0.38)
3.19
(0.25)
4.54 (0.40)
7.41 (0.74)
12.72 (2.08)
Lower Missouri
6.14(0.43)
3.59
(0.27)
5.14 (0.46)
8.43 (0.85)
14.18 (2.39)
Ohio
15.6 (0.62)
4.75
(0.32)
19.41 (0.73)
90.31(3.66)
28.1 (1.47)
Mid-Columbia
86.96 (3.00)
0.57
(0.01)
1.36(0.11)
13.91 (0.30)
6.23 (0.12)
For PCBs and PBDEs, MCR mean reach-wide concentrations in Eco-fish are within the
range of the Great Rivers (Table 14). The results are most similar to the Mississippi and
Missouri river reaches as the Ohio mean concentrations are much higher.
Finally, Mercury is identified as an extensive COC in both studies. In the Great Rivers,
mean reach concentrations for small whole fish were approximately 28 ng/g in the
Missouri, 38 ng/g in the Mississippi, and 52 ng/g in the Ohio, (see Figure 1 in Walters et
al. 2010). This is similar to the MCR mean of 37 ng/g ww (Table 11).
Similarities to the human health results were also found. The Great rivers study
identified PCBs (up to 98% of river reach) and dieldrin (range 26-54% of reach length
among the 3 rivers) as the most important COCs in terms of risk of exposure. Besides
DDT, these were also identified as substantial COCs in the MCR (Figure 15).
2. National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA): nation-wide HH fish study
The USEPA conducted a nationwide study of streams 5th order and larger for ecological
condition (USEPA 2016). This study had a probability design where analytical results
were used to generate statistical estimates for the entire resource of 83,144 rkm. This is
a similar and therefore comparable design to the MCR study. Fish samples were
collected in 2008 and 2009 from 541 sites and analyzed as fillet tissue for human health
endpoints. Published results are available for mercury (Wathen et al. 2014).
In both studies, mercury was detected in all fillet samples. Mean concentrations of
mercury were very similar, with the NRSA reporting a national weighted mean of 229
ng/g compared to MCR mean of 240 ng/g. Approximately 25.4% of the NRSA rkm
exceeded the EPA 300 ng/g SV, which is very similar to the 23.9% exceedance in the
MCR study reach. Also, the NRSA study exceeded the more stringent SV of 120 ng/g in
approximately 65% of the rkm compared to 74.2% in the MCR.
Finally, we compared unpublished USEPA data from the NRSA 2008-2009 for DDT and
total PBDE and from the most recent NRSA 2013-2014 for total PCBs (Provided by
Leanne Stahl, pers. comm., May 2016). Some notable similarities and differences were
found.
56
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Concentrations of DDTs in the Mid-Columbia are significantly higher than those
reported nation-wide (Table 15). Our mean total DDT concentration of 83.3 ng/g in fillets
is about 6 times the mean in the NRSA. The mean concentrations of total PBDEs were
very similar (9.3 vs 11.6 ng/g). For total PCBs, the MCR mean concentration was
actually much lower than the national mean (21.0 ng/g as compared to 68.0 ng/g).
Table 15. Comparison of HH fish results for NRSA and MCR for DDT, PBDE and PCB (Source: unpublished
EPA data, L. Stahl, pers. comm., May 2016).
Statistic
DDT total (ng/g)
PBDE total (ng/g)
PCB total(ng/g)
NRSA
MCR
NRSA
MCR
NRSA
MCR
mean
13.77
83.31
11.57
9.28
67.99
20.99
SE mean
1.15
3.28
1.02
0.38
9.41
0.89
10th
0.68
8.32
0.07
1.30
0.90
2.64
25th
1.81
15.04
1.18
2.78
3.53
5.30
50th
6.31
43.62
4.66
7.33
11.26
12.41
75th
15.19
117.11
11.45
10.96
41.16
28.84
90th
31.90
234.38
26.92
21.37
149.10
70.83
57
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
v . ' ' - / ""r '" ^'-tions
Bioaccumulative contaminants are an ongoing problem in the Mid-Columbia River as
in many other parts of the US. Nationally, the number offish advisories for Hg, PCBs,
and DDTs continues to increase (USEPA 2011).
Elevated mercury concentrations are very similar to those found in rivers across the
US. Likewise, PBDE levels were reflective of other large US river systems (Blocksom et
al. 2010).
MCR fish tissue concentration of DDTs stand out as being extremely elevated
compared to what is found in the rest of the US, even in other agriculturally intense
locations. Although DDTs and the other persistent chlorinated pesticides are likely
related to historical agricultural applications, efforts can be made to reduce their
mobilization and transport into the MCR. Improved land management practices have
significantly reduced concentrations of DDT in fish tissue in some portions of the
Columbia Basin (Washington Department of Ecology 2014).
Important fish tissue contaminants of concern and their ranking are virtually the same
for both the general and high fish consumers. This suggests the same triggers for
improving environmental conditions/reducing contaminants are present regardless of
the intensity of use of the fisheries resource.
This study establishes a baseline for toxic contamination in fish tissue in the Mid-
Columbia. Repeated at intervals, studies of this type would help to determine trends in
contamination so that future assessments of the Columbia River will be able to provide
more robust understanding of the relationship between contaminants and associated
human activity, natural phenomena, and environmental change.
58
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
-jwleclgt - ¦-
Funding was provided by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) via the
EMAP and RARE programs. James Lazorchak (ORD-Cincinnati) assisted with funding
management. This project was conducted as a partnership with Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Larry Caton was the ODEQ lead on this project. He
coordinated the Oregon portion including study design and field and laboratory work.
Statistical design was provided by Tony Olsen and Quality Assurance assistance by
Dave Peck and Bob Ozretich, all from ORD-Corvallis. Dave McBride (WDOH) and Burt
Shephard (EPA-R10) assisted with SVs. Numerous EPA Region 10 colleagues helped
with this project. Field assistants for the Washington sites were Doc Thompson, Dave
Terpenning, Andy Hess, and Don Matheny. GIS assistance was provided by Helen
Rueda, Peter Leinenbach, and James Lopez-Baird. Jennifer Crawford and Maja Tritt
provided assistance with laboratory data compilation. Laboratory results were provided
by EPA Region 10 Manchester Laboratory (water, Eco-fish trace elements), EPA-ORD
Cincinnati Laboratory (whole fish), and ODEQ Laboratory (fish fillets). Finally, we thank
reviewers of previous versions of this report: Karen Blocksom (EPA ORD-Corvallis),
Michael Cox and Don Matheny (EPA Region 10), Dave McBride (WDOH), Blaine
Snyder (Tetra Tech), Keith Seiders (WA Ecology) and Leanne Stahl (EPA-OST).
59
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
IX. References
Ahlers, G. 2010. Pesticide, PCB and PBDE analysis quality control report and data
summary. Prepared by Dynamac Corp. for US EPA. Work Assignment 3-07 Chemical
Analysis of Environmental Samples, under contract EP-D-06-096.
Blocksom K.A., D.M. Walters, T.M. Jicha, J.M. Lazorchak, T.R. Angradi, D.W. Bolgrien.
2010. Persistent organic pollutants in fish tissue in the mid-continental great rivers of the
United States. Science of the Total Environment 408(5): 1180-9.
Bloom, N.S. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine
invertebrate tissue. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(5): 1010-
1017.
Caton, L. 2010. Mid-Columbia River ecological condition assessment: QAPP version
2.0. Control ID#: DEQ09-LAB-0031-QAPP. Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. Portland, Oregon.
CRITFC. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and
Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin, Technical Report 94-3. Columbia
River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon.
Delistraty, D. 2013. Ecotoxicity and risk to human fish consumers of polychlorinated
biphenyls in fish near the Hanford Site (USA). Science of the Total Environment 445-
446:14-21.
Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics methods
manual. EPA/620/R-96/002. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.
Corvallis, OR.
Driscoll, C.T., R.P. Mason, M.C. Hing, D.J. Jacob, and N. Pirrone. 2013. Mercury as a
global pollutant: sources, pathways, and effects. Environmental Science and
Technology 47:4967-4983.
Dyer, S.D., C.E. White-Hull, and B.K. Shephard. 2000. Assessments of chemical
mixtures via toxicity reference values over predict hazard to Ohio fish communities.
Environmental Science and Technology 34:2518-2524.
Eisler, R. 1988. Arsenic hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. Biological Report 85(1.12). Washington D.C.
Environment Canada. 2013. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 federal
environmental quality guidelines for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
Environment Canada, Gatineau.
Exponent/Parametrix. 2013. Upper Columbia River, Final fish tissue data summary and
data gap report, prepared for Teck American Inc. Spokane, WA. http://www.ucr-
rifs.com/assets/Docs/FTDSandGRpt-Final-Volume-1 .pdf
60
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Fuhrer, G., D. Tanner, J. Morace, S. McKenzie, and K. Skach. 1996. Water quality of
the Lower Columbia River Basin: analysis of current and historical water quality data
through 1994. Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4294. US Geological Survey.
Washington D.C.
Fuhrer, G., J. Morace, H. Johnson, J. Rinella, J. Ebbert, S. Embrey, I. Waite, K.
Carpenter, D. Wise, and C. Hughes. 2004. Water Quality in the Yakima River Basin,
Washington, 1999-2000. Circular 1237. US Geological Survey. Washington D.C.
Hayslip, G., L. Edmond, V. Partridge, W. Nelson, H. Lee, F. Cole, J. Lamberson, and L.
Caton. 2007. Ecological Condition of the Columbia River Estuary. EPA 910-R-07-004.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Assessment, Region 10.
Seattle, Washington.
Hinck, J. E., C. Schmidt, V. Blazer, N. Denslow, T. Bartish, P. Anderson, J. Coyle, G.
Dethloff, and D. Tillit. 2006. Environmental contaminants and biomarker responses in
fish from the Columbia River and its tributaries: Spatial and temporal trends. Science of
the Total Environment 36:549-578.
Hulstrom, L.C. 2011. Data summary report for the remedial investigation of Hanford Site
releases to the Columbia River, Hanford Site, Washington. Prepared by Washington
Closure Hanford (WCH 398) for the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations
Office. Office of Assistant Manager for River Corridor. Richland, Washington.
IDEQ. 2010. Idaho 303(d) listed waterbodies for 2010. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality. Boise, ID. IDEQ website:https://www.deq. idaho.gov/water-
qualitv/surface-water/monitorinq-assessment/inteqrated-report.aspx
IEAB. 2013. Invasive Mussels Update: Economic Risk of Zebra and Quagga Mussels in
the Columbia River Basin. Independent Economic Analysis Board. Task Number 201.
IEAB 2013-2. Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Portland, Oregon.
Kincaid, T.M. and A.R. Olsen. 2015. Spsurvey: spatial survey design and analysis. R
Package Version 3.1. URL: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/.
Lazorchak, J.M., F.H. McCormick, L.R. Henry, and A.T. Herlihy. 2003. Contamination of
fish in streams of the mid-Atlantic region: an approach to regional indicator selection
and wildlife assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(3):545-553.
Nilsen E.B. and J.L. Morace. 2014. Foodweb transfer, sediment transport, and
biological impacts of emerging and legacy organic contaminants in the lower Columbia
River, Oregon and Washington, USA: USGS Contaminants and Habitat (ConHab)
Project. Science of the Total Environment 484:319-21.
Nilsen, E., S. Zaugg, D. Alvarez, J. Morace, I. Waite, T. Counihan, J. Hardiman, L.
Torres, R. Patino, M. Mesa, and R. Grove. 2014. Contaminants of legacy and emerging
concern in largescale suckers (Catostomus macrocheilus) and the foodweb in the lower
Columbia River, Oregon and Washington, USA. Science of the Total Environment. 484:
344-352.
61
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
NRC. 2000. Toxicological effects of methylmercury. Committee on the Toxicological
Effects of Methylmercury. National Research Council, Board on Environmental Studies
and Toxicology. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
ODEQ. 2010a. Oregon 303(d) listed waterbodies for 2010. Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. Portland, Oregon. ODEQ website:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/results303d10.asp
ODEQ. 2010b. Quality assurance project plan. 2009 regional environmental monitoring
and assessment program: Mid-Columbia River ecological condition assessment. ODEQ
Control ID#: DEQ09-LAB-0031-QAPP. Version 2.0. Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. Portland, Oregon.
ODEQ. 2012. 2009 Regional environmental monitoring and assessment program: lower
Mid-Columbia river ecological assessment final report. Publication No.12/LAB/006.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon.
ODEQ. 2015. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Table 40: Human Health
Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants (OAR 340-041-8033). Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. Portland, Oregon
R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
http://www.R-proiect.org/.
Seiders, K., C. Deligeannis, M. McCall, and P. Sandvik. 2015. Freshwater fish
contaminant monitoring program annual report for 2013. Environmental Assessment
Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA.
https://fortress.wa.qov/ecv/publications/SummarvPaqes/1503016.html.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for
aquatic resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 4:415-
428.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. 1997. Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous
spatial populations. Environmetrics 8:167-195.
Tetra Tech. 1996. The health of the river 1990-1996, integrated technical report #0253-
01. Prepared for the Lower Columbia River Bi-State Water Quality Program, (note:
predecessor organization to the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership).
USDOE. 2012. Columbia River component risk assessment volume II: Baseline human
health risk assessment. DOE/RL-2010-117, Part 2. US Department of Energy, Richland
Operations Office. Richland, Washington.
USEPA, 1995. Great Lakes water quality initiative: technical support document for
wildlife criteria. EPA-820-B-95-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Science and Technology and Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
62
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
USEPA. 2000a. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish
advisories, volume 1: fish sampling and analysis. Third Edition. EPA 823-B-00-007.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water.
Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2000b. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish
advisories, volume 2: risk assessment and fish consumption limits. Third Edition.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water,
Washington D.C.
USEPA. 2001. Water quality criterion for the protection of human health: methyl
mercury. EPA-823-R-01-001. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
USEPA. 2002. Columbia River Basin fish contaminant survey, 1996-1998. EPA 910/R-
02-006. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Office of Environmental
Assessment. Seattle, Washington.
USEPA. 2006a. EPA 2006-2011 Strategic plan: charting our course. US Environmental
Protection Agency, September 30, 2006.
USEPA. 2006b. Draft Guidance for Implementing the January 2001 Methylmercury
Water Quality Criterion. EPA 823-B-04-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2007. Phase 1 fish tissue sampling data evaluation, Upper Columbia River site
CERCLA RI/FS. Prepared by CH2M HILL and Ecology and Environment, Inc. for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Seattle, WA.
USEPA. 2008a. Mid-Columbia field methods manual for probabilistic sampling in
Oregon and Washington. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Office of
Environmental Assessment. Seattle, WA.
USEPA. 2008b. Quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for the Mid-Columbia toxics
study for probabilistic monitoring in Oregon and Washington. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10 Office of Environmental Assessment. Seattle, WA.
USEPA. 2009. Columbia River Basin: State of the river report for toxics. EPA 910-R-08-
004. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Seattle, Washington.
USEPA. 2010. An exposure assessment of polybrominated diphenyl ethers.
EPA/600/R-08/086F. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington D.C.
USEPA. 2011. Fish advisory website: http://www.epa.gov/fish-tech/national-listinq-fish-
advisories-qeneral-fact-sheet-2011. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water. Washington D.C.
63
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
USEPA. 2016. National rivers and streams assessment 2008-2009 technical report.
EPA/841 /R-16/008. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of
Research and Development. Washington D.C.
Walters, D.M., K.A. Blocksom, J.M. Lazorchak, T.M. Jicha, T.R. Angradi, and D.W.
Bolgrien. 2010. Mercury contamination in fish in mid-continent great rivers of the United
States: Importance of species traits and environmental factors. Environmental Science
and Technology 44:2947-2953.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. 303(d) listed waterbodies for 2012. Olympia,
WA. website: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/assessment.htm
Washington Department of Ecology. 2014. Upper Yakima River watershed DDT and
dieldrin monitoring, 2014 Status monitoring forTMDL. Environmental Assessment
Program. Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Health. 2012. Human health evaluation of contaminants in
Upper Columbia River fish. DOH 334-317. Division of Environmental Public Health,
Safety, and Toxicology. Olympia, WA.
Wathen J.B., J.M. Lazorchak, A.R Olsen, and A. Batt. 2014. A national statistical survey
assessment of mercury concentrations in fillets offish collected in the US EPA national
rivers and streams assessment of the continental USA. Chemosphere 122:52-61.
Wells, S.W., T.D. Counihan, A. Puis, M. Sytsma, and B. Adair. 2011. Prioritizing zebra
and quagga mussel monitoring in the Columbia River Basin. Paper 10. Center for Lakes
and Reservoirs. Portland State University. Portland, OR.
Williamson, A.K., M.D. Munn, S.J. Ryker, R.J. Wagner, J.C. Ebbert, and A.M.
Vanderpool. 1998. Water quality in the Central Columbia Plateau, Washington and
Idaho, 1992-95: Circular 1144. US Geological Survey. Washington, D.C.
64
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
X. Appendices
Appendix 1. Land cover conditions within assessment areas.
Two GIS datasets were used to generate estimates of land cover and human population in the basin: The
2011 National Land Cover (NLCD) dataset (www.mrlc.gov) and the 2010 Census of the human
population were used in this analysis and obtained from the USEPA server (i.e., the Navteq dataset)
Watershed areas associated with the Columbia and Snake Rivers were derived from the National
Hydrologic Dataset (NHD) (nhd.usgs.gov). Ten mile-wide sampling buffers for the Columbia and Snake
Rivers were created in ArcGIS.
Land cover and population datasets were summarized for three assessment units; the black polygons in
Figure A1 are the "watershed" areas associated with each evaluation river segment. The assessment
units are 1) the Middle Columbia River reach (Bonneville Dam to the confluence with the Snake River),
2) Upper Middle Columbia River Reach (confluence with Snake River to the Grand Coulee dam), and 3)
the Snake River reach. In addition, the land cover dataset was sampled at a 10-mile river buffer
resolution (e.g., turquoise, yellow and orange polygons for the Middle Columbia River, Upper Middle
Columbia River, and the Snake River reaches, respectively) (Figure Al).
Figure Al. Land Cover Conditions in the Project Area
Land Cover Class - NLCD 2011
Barren Land
Cultivated Crops
Deciduous Forest
H Developed. High Intensity
~ Developed. Low Intensity
H Developed. Medium Intensity
| Developed, Open Space
n Emergent Herbaceuous Wetlands
Evergreen Forest
| Hay/Pasture
| Herbaceuous
| Mixed Forest
Open Water
| Perennial Snow/Ice
| Shrub/Scrub
| Woody Wetlands
65
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Land cover is shown for the entire basin area that drains to the study reach as well as separately for the
areas of the basin that drain to the Snake River and to the Mid-Columbia reaches above and below the
confluence with the Snake River. Because land use is often different near water sources, conditions
were also summarized for the zone within 10 miles of the large rivers. The comparison shows that
agriculture is more focused in lower elevations closer to the rivers. Results indicate that most people live
in the Snake River portion of the assessment area, however the highest density of people is observed in
the Upper Middle Columbia River Reach.
Table Al-1. MCR basin area proportions by land cover class.
Land Cover group
Lower Mid-
Columbia
Upper Mid-
Columbia
Snake River
Entire area
Entire watershed
Shrub/Grasslands
52%
45%
59%
56%
Agriculture
15%
24%
11%
14%
Forest
29%
23%
26%
26%
Developed
3%
5%
3%
3%
"Other"
2%
3%
2%
2%
Within 10 mile river buffer within watershed
Shrub/Grasslands
44%
61%
50%
51%
Agriculture
32%
23%
35%
32%
Forest
13%
7%
9%
9%
Developed
5%
5%
5%
5%
"Other"
5%
4%
2%
3%
Table Al-2. Population density by MCR sub-basin.
Assessment area
Population
(Million)
Average population
density (People/MileA2)
Middle Columbia
0.44
37
Upper Middle Columbia
0.79
84
Snake River
1.53
35
Entire Basin Area
2.77
43
66
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 2. Description of Mid-Columbia sample sites.
SiteJD
ST
ECO
HH
Latitude
(DD)1
Longitude
(DD)1
Location
Downstream
dam
CR206637-001
OR
45.675508
-121.8954
Cascade Locks
Bonneville
CR206637-002
OR
45.709947
-121.6155
Drano Lake
Bonneville
CR206637-003
OR
45.71942
-120.28788
Lake Umatilla Ch. Marker 18
John Day
CR206637-004
OR
45.841641
-119.83513
Crow Butte Powerline
John Day
CR206637-005
OR
45.70413
-121.82329
Trotter Point
Bonneville
CR206637-006
OR
45.697336
-121.76106
Wind Mountain
Bonneville
CR206637-007
OR
45.739881
-120.56969
Lake Umatilla Ch. Marker 6
John Day
CR206637-008
OR
45.909436
-119.6153
Big Blalock Island
John Day
CR206637-009
OR
45.626801
-121.11545
Lake Celilo
The Dalles
CR206637-010
OR
45.653876
-120.88012
Miller Island East
The Dalles
CR206637-011
OR
45.736789
-120.19939
Arlington
John Day
CR206637-012
OR
45.912465
-119.45946
Irrigon
John Day
CR206637-013
OR
no
45.703909
-121.3631
Memaloose
Bonneville
CR206637-014
OR
no
45.690345
-120.77742
Rufus
The Dalles
CR206637-015
OR
no
45.793259
-120.04913
Hepner Junction
John Day
CR206637-016
OR
45.936969
-119.26824
McNary Dam
McNary
CR206637-017
OR
45.719027
-121.50281
Hood River
Bonneville
CR206637-018
OR
45.843338
-119.81013
Crow Butte Ch. Marker 35
John Day
CR206637-019
OR
45.609188
-121.18829
The Dalles
Bonneville
CR206637-020
OR
45.638964
-120.91346
Miller Island South
The Dalles
CR206637-021
OR
no
45.697051
-120.49116
Lake Umatilla Ch. Marker 10
John Day
CR206637-022
OR
45.87463
-119.6757
Blalock Island
John Day
CR206637-023
OR
45.622764
-121.12081
Dalles Locks Ch. Marker 1
The Dalles
CR206637-063
WA
46.637915
-119.74405
Vernita Bridge
McNary
CR206637-064
WA
46.235222
-119.19375
Kennewick-Wade Island
McNary
CR206637-065
WA
48.016566
-119.67988
Bridgeport
Wells
CR206637-066
WA
47.904925
-119.91118
Chelan
Rocky Reach
CR206637-067
WA
no
46.646822
-119.6817
East Vernita Bridge
McNary
CR206637-068
WA
46.014435
-118.96892
Port Kelley
McNary
CR206637-069
WA
47.746484
-120.21002
Daroga
Rocky Reach
CR206637-070
WA
46.841179
-119.94845
Beverly
Priest Rapids
CR206637-071
WA
46.557892
-119.3214
Savage Island
McNary
CR206637-072
WA
no
48.133643
-119.05287
Coyote Creek
Chief Joseph
CR206637-073
WA
47.379405
-120.23408
Rock Island Wenatchee
Rock Island
CR206637-074
WA
47.127049
-120.00402
Babcock Bench
Wanapum
1. Latitude and longitude are in decimal degrees using the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
67
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 2, cont. Description of Mid-Columbia sample sites.
SiteJD
ST
ECO
HH
Latitude
(DD)1
Longitude
(DD)1
Location
Downstream
dam
CR206637-075
WA
46.369823
-119.26536
Johnson Island
McNary
CR206637-076
WA
48.115615
-119.21621
Rufus Wood
Chief Joseph
CR206637-077
WA
47.374159
-120.19171
Pumpstation Wenatchee
Rock Island
CR206637-078
WA
47.22414
-120.05618
Crescent Bar
Wanapum
CR206637-079
WA
46.194433
-119.04389
Snake Confluence
McNary
CR206637-080
WA
47.772996
-120.14471
Goose Falls
Rocky Reach
CR206637-081
WA
46.082414
-118.94324
Lake Wallula Gap
McNary
1. Latitude and longitude are in decimal degrees using the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
68
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 3. Fish tissue analytes and associated methods and detection limits.
BZ#
Analyte name
Eco-fish
HH- fish
Detection Limits
PCB Congeners (Accelerated Solvent Extraction/Solvent Cleanup/Lipid partitioning/ Electron Capture)
8
2,4-Dichlorobiphenyl, #8 (34883-43-7)
Yes
N/A see
0.625 ng/Kg
18
2,2',5-Trichlorobiphenyl, #18 (37680-65-2)
Yes
HH PCBin
Appendix
5.)
28
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl, #28 (7012-37-5)
Yes
44
2,2',3,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #44 (41464-39-5)
Yes
52
2,2',5,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #52 (35693-99-3)
Yes
66
2,3',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #66 (32598-10-0)
Yes
77
3,3',4,4' Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #77* (32598-13-3)
Yes
81
3,4,4,5- Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #81 (70362-50-4)
No
101
2,2',4,5,5,-Pentachlorobiphenyl, #101 (37680-73-2)
Yes
105
2,3,3',4,4,-Pentachlorobiphenyl, #105 (32598-14-4)
Yes
110
2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
No
118
2,3',4,4,,5-Pentachlorobiphenyl, #118 (31508-00-6)
Yes
126
3,3',4,4',5 Pentachlorobiphenyl, #126
Yes
128
2,2',3,3,,4,4,-Hexachlorobiphenyl, #128 (38380-07-3)
Yes
138
2,2',3,4,4',5-Hexachlorobiphenyl, #138 (35065-28-2)
Yes
153
2,2',4,4,,5,5,-Hexachlorobiphenyl, #153 (35065-27-1)
Yes
169
3,3',4,4',5,5' Hexachlorobiphenyl, #169 (32774-16-6)
Yes
170
2,2',3,3,,4,4,,5-Heptachlorobiphenyl, #170 (35065-30-6)
Yes
180
2,2',3,4,4,,5,5,-Heptachlorobiphenyl, #180 (35065-29-3)
Yes
187
2,2',3,4,,5,5,,6-Heptachlorobiphenyl, #187 (52663-68-0)
Yes
195
2,2',3,3,,4,4,,5,6-Octachlorobiphenyl, #195 (52663-78-2)
Yes
206
2,2',3,3,,4,4,,5,5,,6-Nonachlorobiphenyl, #206 (40186-72-
9)
Yes
209
Decachlorobiphenyl, #209 (2051-24-3)
Yes
Chlorinated Pesticides (Accelerated Solvent Extraction/Solvent Cleanup/Electron Capture)
Aldrin (309-00-2)
Yes
Yes
Detection limit
Alpha-Chlordane (Chlordane-cis 5103-71-9)
Yes
Yes
(ppb) ng/Kg wet
weight variable,
approx. 0.12 -
0.73
Alpha-BHC
Yes
Yes
beta-BHC [Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta-]
No
Yes
Chlordane-trans (5103-74-2)
Yes
Yes
delta-BHC [Hexachlorocyclohexane, delta-]
No
Yes
Dieldrin (60-57-1)
Yes
Yes
Endosulfan 1 (959-98-8)
Yes
Yes
Endosulfan II (33213-65-9)
Yes
Yes
Endosulfan sulfate
No
Yes
Endrin (72-20-8)
Yes
Yes
Endrin Ketone
Yes
No
69
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 3, cont. Fish tissue analytes and associated methods and detection limits.
BZ#
Analyte name
Eco-fish
HH- fish
Detection Limits
Heptachlor (76-44-8)
Yes
Yes
Heptachlor Epoxide (1024-57-3)
Yes
Yes
Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
Yes
Yes
Hexachlorocyclohexane [Gamma-HC/Lindane] (58-89-87)
Yes
Yes
Methoxychlor
No
Yes
Mirex (2385-85-5)
Yes
Yes
trans-Nonachlor (3765-80-5)
Yes
Yes
cis-Nonachlor (5103-73-1)
Yes
Yes
Oxychlordane (27304-13-8)
Yes
Yes
DDT & related compounds (Accelerated Solvent Extraction/Solvent Cleanup/Electron Capture)
2,4'-DDD (53-19-0)
Yes
Yes
Detection limit
(ppb) ng/Kg wet
weight approx.
0.12 -0.73
4,4'-DDD (72-54-8)
Yes
Yes
2,4'-DDE (3424-82-6)
Yes
Yes
4,4'-DDE (72-55-9)
Yes
Yes
2,4'-DDT (789-02-6)
Yes
Yes
4,4'-DDT (50-29-3)
Yes
Yes
PBDE Congeners
28
2,4,4'-Tribromodiphenyl ether
No
N/A (HH
PBDEs listed
in Appendix
4.)
47
2,2',4,4'-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether
Yes
66
2,3',4,4'-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether
Yes
85
2,2',3,4,4'-Pentabromodiphenyl ether
No
99
2,2',4,4',5-Pentabromodiphenyl ether
Yes
100
2,2',4,4',6-Pentabromodiphenyl ether
Yes
138
2,2',3,4,4',5'-Hexabromodiphenyl ether
Yes
153
2,2',4,4',5,5'-Hexabromodiphenyl ether
Yes
154
2,2',4,4',5,6'-Hexabromodiphenyl ether
Yes
183
2,2',3,4,4',5',6-Heptabromodiphenyl ether
Yes
209
Decabromodiphenyl ether
No
70
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 3, cont. Fish tissue analytes and associated methods and detection limits.
BZ#
Analyte name
Eco-fish
HH- fish
Detection Limits
Dioxins and Furans (HRGC/HRMS EPA method 1613)
dioxin Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
No
Yes
dioxin Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,4,7,8- (1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD)
No
Yes
dioxin Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,6,7,8- (1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD)
No
Yes
dioxin Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,7,8,9- (1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD)
No
Yes
dioxin Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,7,8- (1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD)
No
Yes
2,3,7,8-Substituted Dioxin/Furans
No
Yes
Dioxin Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 2,3,7,8 (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
No
Yes
dioxin Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
No
Yes
furan Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF)
No
Yes
furan Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- (1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF)
No
Yes
furan Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,7,8- (1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF)
No
Yes
furan Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,6,7,8- (1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF)
No
Yes
furan Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,8,9- (1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF)
No
Yes
furan Pentachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,8- (1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF)
No
Yes
furan Hexachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,6,7,8- (2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF)
No
Yes
furan Pentachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,7,8- (2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF)
No
Yes
furan Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8- (2,3,7,8-TCDF)
No
Yes
furan Octachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
No
Yes
Trace metals/metalloids (method 6020 - ICPMS)
Arsenic
Yes
No
Cadmium
Yes
No
Chromium
Yes
No
Copper
Yes
No
Lead
Yes
No
Nickel
Yes
No
Zinc
Yes
No
Mercury and Selenium
Mercury (7439-97-6) (via ICP Methods)
Yes
Yes
0.01 ng/g ww
Selenium (SOP# ECCB 032.0 Revision MIRB040.2E) (via ICP
Methods)
Yes
No
0.034 ng/g ww
Additional Measurements
Percent Moisture (Karl-Fisher Titration) or Percent Solids
Yes
Yes
Lipids (Gravimeteric Method)
Yes
Yes
71
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 4. Human health endpoint PBDE analytes. Method HRGC/HRMS EPA method 1614 for PBDEs.
BZ#
Analyte name
BZ#
Analyte name
PBDE-15
4,4'-Dibromodiphenyl
PBDE-154
2,2',4,4',5,6l-Hexabromodiphenyl
PBDE-17
2,2',4-Tribromodiphenyl ether
PBDE-156
2,3,3',4,4',5-Hexabromodiphenyl
PBDE-28
2,4,4'-Tribromodiphenyl ether
PBDE-171
2,2',3,3',4,4l,6-Heptabromodiphenyl
PBDE-47
2,2',4,4'-Tetrabromodiphenyl
PBDE-180
2,2',3,4,4',5,5l-Heptabromodiphenyl
PBDE-49
2,2',4,5'-Tetrabromodiphenyl
PBDE-183
2,2',3,4,4',5l,6-Heptabromodiphenyl
PBDE-66
2,3',4,4'-Tetrabromodiphenyl
PBDE-184
2,2',3,4,4',6,6l-Heptabromodiphenyl
PBDE-71
2,3',4',6-Tetrabromodiphenyl
PBDE-191
2,3,3',4,4',5l,6-Heptabromodiphenyl
PBDE-77
3,3',4,4'-Tetrabromodiphenyl
PBDE-196
2,2',3,3',4,4l,5,6l-Octabromodiphenyl
PBDE-85
2,2',3,4,4'-Pentabromodiphenyl ether
PBDE-197
2,2',3,3',4,4l,6,6l-Octabromodiphenyl
PBDE-99
2,2',4,4',5-Pentabromodiphenyl ether
PBDE-201
2,2',3,3',4,5l,6,6l-Octabromodiphenyl
PBDE-100
2,2',4,4',6-Pentabromodiphenyl
PBDE-203
2,2',3,4,4',5,5l,6-Octabromodiphenyl
PBDE-119
2,3',4,4',6-Pentabromodiphenyl
PBDE-204
2,2',3,4,4l,5,6,6l-Octabromodiphenyl
PBDE-126
S^'^^'^'-Pentabromodiphenyl
PBDE-205
2,3,3',4,4',5,5l,6-Octabromodiphenyl
PBDE-138
2,2',3,4,4',5l-Hexabromodiphenyl
PBDE-206
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-Nonabromodiphenyl
PBDE-139
2,2',3,4,4',6-Hexabromodiphenyl
PBDE-207
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6,6'-Nonabromodiphenyl
PBDE-140
2,2',3,4,4',6l-Hexabromodiphenyl
PBDE-208
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6,6l-Nonabromodiphenyl
PBDE-153
2,2',4,4',5,5l-Hexabromodiphenyl
PBDE-209
Decabromodiphenyl
72
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 5. Human health endpoint fillet tissue PCBs analytes (method HRGC/HRMS EPA method 1668).
BZ#
BZ#
BZ#
BZ#
BZ#
BZ#
BZ#
PCB-16
PCB-44
PCB-73
PCB-100
PCB-132
PCB-159
PCB-187
PCB-17
PCB-45
PCB-74
PCB-101
PCB-134
PCB-161
PCB-188
PCB-18
PCB-46
PCB-77
PCB-102
PCB-135
PCB-162
PCB-189
PCB-19
PCB-47
PCB-78
PCB-103
PCB-136
PCB-164
PCB-190
PCB-20
PCB-48
PCB-79
PCB-104
PCB-137
PCB-165
PCB-191
PCB-22
PCB-49
PCB-80
PCB-105
PCB-138
PCB-166
PCB-192
PCB-23
PCB-50
PCB-81
PCB-106
PCB-139
PCB-167
PCB-194
PCB-24
PCB-51
PCB-82
PCB-107
PCB-140
PCB-168
PCB-195
PCB-25
PCB-53
PCB-83
PCB-108
PCB-141
PCB-169
PCB-196
PCB-26
PCB-54
PCB-84
PCB-109
PCB-142
PCB-170
PCB-197
PCB-27
PCB-55
PCB-85
PCB-110
PCB-143
PCB-171
PCB-198
PCB-28
PCB-56
PCB-86
PCB-112
PCB-144
PCB-172
PCB-199
PCB-29
PCB-57
PCB-87
PCB-114
PCB-145
PCB-173
PCB-200
PCB-30
PCB-58
PCB-88
PCB-115
PCB-146
PCB-174
PCB-201
PCB-31
PCB-59
PCB-89
PCB-118
PCB-147
PCB-175
PCB-202
PCB-34
PCB-60
PCB-90
PCB-120
PCB-148
PCB-176
PCB-203
PCB-35
PCB-61
PCB-91
PCB-122
PCB-149
PCB-177
PCB-204
PCB-36
PCB-62
PCB-92
PCB-124
PCB-150
PCB-178
PCB-205
PCB-37
PCB-63
PCB-93
PCB-125
PCB-151
PCB-179
PCB-206
PCB-38
PCB-64
PCB-94
PCB-126
PCB-152
PCB-180
PCB-207
PCB-39
PCB-65
PCB-95
PCB-127
PCB-154
PCB-181
PCB-208
PCB-40
PCB-66
PCB-96
PCB-128
PCB-155
PCB-183
PCB-209
PCB-41
PCB-69
PCB-97
PCB-129
PCB-156
PCB-184
PCB-42
PCB-70
PCB-98
PCB-130
PCB-157
PCB-185
PCB-43
PCB-71
PCB-99
PCB-131
PCB-158
PCB-186
73
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 6. Summary of habitat and water chemistry data. Methods used for chemical analysis is in the
QAPP (ODEQ 2010a). Summarized results with summary statistics to provided general description of
conditions.
Table A6-1. Water physical properties and in situ measurements summary statistics for MCR reach
(N=718 rkm).
Metric
units
Mean
Median
Min.
Max.
Temperature
°C
19.0
18.9
14.5
24.4
Specific Conductance
(Us/cm)
150
150
142
172
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
9.5
9.4
8.4
10.9
ORP
millivolts
166
139
76
428
Secchi depth*
M
3.2
2.9
0.8
8.5
Turbidity
NTU
2.3
2.0
0.5
7.0
PH
-log [H]
8.0
8.0
6.8
8.9
*Secchi values omitted from summary statistics if clear to bottom. Secchi Depth data not collected at 5 of the Oregon sites.
Table A6-2. Water quality metrics summary statistics for Mid-Columbia River (N=718 rkm).
Metric
units
Mean
Median
Min.
Max.
Calcium
mg/L
17.41
17.40
15.10
19.10
Sulfate
mg/L
8.68
8.09
6.89
11.10
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
3.06
2.00
1.00
11.80
Nitrate+Nitrite (as N)
mg/L
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.33
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
1.67
1.58
1.23
2.00
Chlorophyll a
Hg/L
3.56
3.02
0.70
15.10
74
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Table A6-3. Water trace element summary statistics for Mid-Columbia River (N=718 rkm).
Metric
units
Mean
Median
Min.
Max.
Non-detects
(% Obs.)1
Antimony
Mg/L
1.36
1.00
1.00
2.00
100
Arsenic
Mg/L
1.18
0.73
0.63
2.00
71
Barium
Mg/L
30.35
31.50
20.70
34.20
0
Beryllium
Mg/L
0.14
0.05
0.05
0.30
98
Cadmium
Mg/L
0.19
0.13
0.13
0.30
98
Chromium
M-g/L
1.19
1.30
1.00
1.30
100
Cobalt
M-g/L
0.11
0.06
0.04
0.20
64
Copper
M-g/L
1.37
1.30
1.30
1.50
100
Lead
M-g/L
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.27
81
Molybdenum
Mg/L
1.43
0.59
0.45
3.00
55
Nickel
M-g/L
0.85
0.77
0.69
1.00
55
Selenium
M-g/L
1.55
1.30
1.30
2.00
100
Silver
Mg/L
0.44
0.63
0.10
0.63
100
Thallium
Mg/L
0.44
0.63
0.10
0.63
100
Vanadium
Mg/L
2.16
1.00
1.00
4.00
100
Zinc
Mg/L
3.16
3.00
2.50
4.40
67
Mercury_dissolved
ng/L
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.521
98
Mercury_total
ng/L
0.655
0.564
0.500
1.900
26
1. All variables except barium had values at the detection limit included in summary statistical calculations. Statistics are
therefore biased towards high. Non-detect percent observations refers to the percent of samples analyzed not percent of
inference rkm.
75
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Physical Habitat
The general physical characteristics of the riparian zone, littoral zone (fish habitat), and overall condition
were captured using visual quantification based on observations of the field crew. Observations were
collected at each sample reach and by inference calculated for the survey reach.
1. Reach characteristics
Observations limited to the area immediate adjacent to the river were used to characterize the reach.
The most commonly observed vegetation types in the riparian zone were shrubs and grasses. Bare
ground was also common due to the abundance of rocky outcrops of basalt, rip rap (particularly in the
lower portion of the middle Columbia) and simply the arid conditions that are dominant in the basin.
Macrophytes were sparse or rare with occasional sites with some abundance. The presence of wetlands
was extremely rare. Land use types observed in riparian zone of the sample reaches were generally low.
There was some urban and residential development but overall this was sparse. Other forms of land use
by humans in the riparian zone were sparse or rare.
Shrub
Bareground
Grass
Macrophytes
Forest
Wetland
¦ Extensive (>75%)
~ Moderate(25-75%)
¦ Sparse (5-25%)
~ Rare (<5%)
~ missing
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
River Km (percent)
Figure A6-1. Extent of riparian cover classes in the MCR.
76
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Urban/residential
Grazing
Row crops
Logging
0% 20% 40% 60%
River Km (percent)
80%
¦ Extensive (>75%)
~ Moderate(25-75%)
C Sparse (5-25%)
~ Rare (<5%)
~ missing
100%
Figure A6-2. Extent of general human use categories, MCR.
2. Fish cover
Fish cover in the form of boulders/ledges and macrophytes was fairly abundant across the study area.
Both of these are likely related to inundation due to the dams inundate rocky areas and create the slack
water conditions that are favorable to macrophytes and filamentous algae. The observed low
abundance of brushy and woody debris is also expected as these are not substantial components of the
riparian zone of the Mid-Columbia River.
Boulder/ledge
Macrophytes
Artificial structure
Filamentous algae
Overhanging veg.
Brushy debris
Woody debris
Undercut
0% 20% 40% 60%
River Km (percent)
80%
¦ Very Heavy (>75%)
~ Heavy (40-75%)
D Moderate (10-40%)
~ Sparse (<10%)
~ Absent (0%)
100%
Figure A6-3. Extent offish cover classes in the MCR.
77
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
3. General habitat assessment
The general habitat was evaluated using a quality rating based on visual observation of six habitat
parameters (see QAPP). Bank stability was the only parameter that showed a majority of the study area
to be in good/excellent condition. The narrow riparian zone, limited off-channel areas, and low diversity
of cover are reflected in the overall limited quality of the aquatic habitat. Frankly, expectation of habitat
quality is low due to the highly altered state of the MCR. Water velocity is low in the inundated area and
water levels fluctuate highly as a result of dams and their water level modifications and controls.
Bank Stability
Bottom deposition
Aquatic vegetation
Large wood debris
Riparian width
Off-channel habitat
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
River Km (percent)
Figure A6-4.
G. Invasive mussels
Veliger tow samples from the 19 Washington sites were submitted to Portland State University for
analysis. Veligers were not detected in any of the samples. Although this does not prove that there are
no mussel veligers in the sampled reach, it does contribute to the effort to search for introduced species
when possible as part of early detection efforts (Wells, et al. 2011). The latest information from PSU
indicates that invasive mussel veligers are still unknown in the Columbia River (IEAB 2013). However,
research has established that Columbia River water quality would probably support these invasive
mussels (IEAB 2013) which require adequate temperature and concentrations of dissolved calcium for
growth and shell development.
¦ Excellent
~ Good
¦I Fair
~ Poor
78
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 7. Description of human health endpoint fish composite samples collected from 41 probability sampling sites Mid-Columbia River.
Site ID
State
Location
Common name
Taxon
Fish
Count
Mean Igth
(mm)
Mean
wt(g)
Lipid
(%)
CR206637-001
OR
Cascade Locks
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
4
265
335
<1.0
CR206637-002
OR
Drano Lake
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
315
466
<1.0
CR206637-003
OR
Lake Umatilla CM 18
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
302
316
<1.0
CR206637-004
OR
Crow Butte Powerline
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
397
862
<1.0
CR206637-005
OR
Trotter Pt
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
373
772
<1.0
CR206637-006
OR
Wind Mtn
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
3
373
793
<1.0
CR206637-007
OR
Lake Umatilla CM 6
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
258
218
<1.0
CR206637-008
OR
Big Blalock Island
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
4
364
640
<1.0
CR206637-009
OR
Lake Celilo
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
484
1370
<1.0
CR206637-010
OR
Miller Island East
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
277
274
<1.0
CR206637-011
OR
Arlington
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
3
360
560
<1.0
CR206637-012
OR
Irrigon
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
262
251
<1.0
CR206637-013
OR
Memaloose
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
524
1586
<1.0
CR206637-014
OR
Rufus
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
296
333
<1.0
CR206637-015
OR
Hepner Junction
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
554
1450
4.9
CR206637-016
OR
McNary Dam
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
547
1640
2.7
CR206637-017
OR
Hood River
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
409
992
<1.0
CR206637-018
OR
Crow Butte CM 35
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
371
630
<1.0
CR206637-019
OR
The Dalles
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
252
206
<1.0
CR206637-020
OR
Miller Island South
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
262
254
<1.0
CR206637-021
OR
Lake Umatilla CM 10
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
230
276
<1.0
CR206637-022
OR
Blalock Island
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
402
850
<1.0
CR206637-023
OR
Dalles Locks CM1
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
302
364
3.3
CR206637-063
WA
Vernita Bridge
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
540
1501
4.2
CR206637-064
WA
Kennewick-Wade island
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
3
535
1581
2.1
CR206637-065
WA
Bridgeport
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
478
907
<1.0
CR206637-066
WA
Chelan
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
456
907
1.7
CR206637-067
WA
Port Kelley
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
446
1120
4.3
79
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 7, cont. Description of human health endpoint fish composite samples collected from 41 probability sampling sites Mid-Columbia
River.
Site ID
State
Location
Common name
Taxon
Fish
Count
Mean Ingth
(mm)
Mean wt
(g)
Lipid
(%)
CR206637-068
WA
Daroga
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
4
391
945
<1.0
CR206637-069
WA
Beverly
yellow perch
Perca flavescens
3
297
401
<1.0
CR206637-070
WA
Savage Island
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
482
1042
2.2
CR206637-071
WA
Coyote creek
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
267
314
<1.0
CR206637-073
WA
Rock Island Wenatchee
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
488
1092
1.5
CR206637-074
WA
Babcock Bench
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
3
482
1157
2.6
CR206637-075
WA
Johnson Island
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
5
295
414
<1.0
CR206637-076
WA
Rufus Wood
walleye
Sander vitreum
2
420
756
2.7
CR206637-077
WA
Pumpstation Wenatchee
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
4
416
693
<1.0
CR206637-078
WA
Crescent Bar
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
432
784
1.5
CR206637-079
WA
Snake Confluence
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
516
1394
3.2
CR206637-080
WA
Goose Falls
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
5
309
280
<1.0
CR206637-081
WA
Lake Wallula Gap
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
4
436
896
<1.0
80
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 8. Description of Eco-fish composite samples collected from 37 probability sampling sites in the Mid-Columbia River.
Site Id.
State
Location
Common name
Taxon
Fish
Count
Mean Ingth
(mm)
Mean
wt-(g)
Lipid
(%)
CR206637-001
OR
Cascade Locks
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
17
380
22.4
2.28
CR206637-002
OR
Drano Lake
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
11
260
23.6
2.01
CR206637-003
OR
Lake Umatilla CM 18
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
19
250
13.2
3.97
CR206637-004
OR
Crow Butte Powerline
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
23
295
12.8
3.84
CR206637-005
OR
Trotter Pt
redside shiner
Richardsonius balteatus
12
210
17.5
3.40
CR206637-006
OR
Wind Mtn
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
16
310
19.4
8.39
CR206637-007
OR
Lake Uma. CM 6
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
17
250
14.7
4.18
CR206637-008
OR
Big Blalock Island
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
27
470
17.4
3.17
CR206637-009
OR
Lake Celilo
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
8
220
27.5
2.48
CR206637-010
OR
Miller Island East
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
13
440
33.8
2.03
CR206637-011
OR
Arlington
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
10
210
21.0
3.21
CR206637-012
OR
Irrigon
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
9
250
27.8
2.23
CR206637-016
OR
McNary Dam
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
16
400
25.0
3.54
CR206637-017
OR
Hood River
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
71
620
8.7
2.51
CR206637-018
OR
Crow Butte CM 35
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
17
250
14.7
3.64
CR206637-019
OR
The Dalles
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
na
missing
na
5.30
CR206637-020
OR
Miller Island South
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
12
300
25.0
1.94
CR206637-022
OR
Blalock Island
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
23
420
18.3
3.44
CR206637-023
OR
Dalles Locks CM1
Cottus sp.
Family Cottidae
12
160
13.3
2.61
CR206637-063
WA
Vernita Bridge
redside shiner
Richardsonius balteatus
10
56
5.6
7.16
CR206637-064
WA
Kennewick-Wade Is.
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
5
280
56.0
4.64
CR206637-065
WA
Bridgeport
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
24
308
12.8
3.41
CR206637-066
WA
Chelan
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
5
364
72.8
2.92
CR206637-068
WA
Port Kelley
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieu
10
210
21.0
2.74
CR206637-069
WA
Daroga
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
8
252
31.5
3.20
81
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 8, cont. Description of Eco-fish composite samples collected from 37 probability sampling sites in the Mid-Columbia River.
Site ID
State
Location
Common name
Taxon
Fish
Count
Mean
Ingth (mm)
Mean
wt-(g)
Lipid
(%)
CR206637-070
WA
Beverly
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
19
196
10.3
4.05
CR206637-071
WA
Savage Island
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieu
9
196
21.8
3.23
CR206637-072
WA
Coyote Creek
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
616
123.2
3.26
CR206637-073
WA
Rock Island Wenatchee
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
8
252
31.5
3.34
CR206637-074
WA
Babcock Bench
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
6
280
46.7
3.06
CR206637-075
WA
Johnson Island
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
5
504
100.8
4.23
CR206637-076
WA
Rufus Wood
largescale sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
6
476
79.3
2.46
CR206637-077
WA
Pumpstation Wenatchee
chiselmouth
Acrocheilus alutaceus
9
280
31.1
4.23
CR206637-078
WA
Crescent Bar
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
7
280
40.0
3.10
CR206637-079
WA
Snake Confluence
yellow perch
Perca flavescens
6
252
42.0
4.68
CR206637-080
WA
Goose Falls
northern pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus oregonensis
7
196
28.0
2.79
CR206637-081
WA
Lake Wallula Gap
smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieu
5
336
67.2
3.34
82
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 9. Human health endpoint fish fillet tissue summary statistics. Units in ng/g ww.
HH-fish analytes (ng/g
ww)
Min.
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Mean
Max.
S.E. of
mean
%
ND1
Mercury
70
80
120
190
280
450
241
750
6
0
2/T-DDD
0.016
0.103
0.138
0.479
3.010
6.080
1.905
6.980
0.0855
0
2,4'-DDE
0.020
0.043
0.081
0.201
0.761
1.500
0.520
1.770
0.0209
0
2,4'-DDT
0.015
0.028
0.042
0.127
0.456
0.943
0.311
1.180
0.0127
0
4/T-DDD
0.189
0.703
1.350
3.770
20.100
43.600
13.217
47.200
0.5827
0
4/T-DDE
2.650
7.260
12.400
31.300
92.800
181.000
64.677
226.000
2.4939
0
4,4'-DDT
0.099
0.166
0.280
1.010
4.080
8.290
2.676
11.100
0.1155
0
total DDTs
3.191
8.316
15.039
43.621
117.108
234.375
83.306
289.553
3.2826
0
alpha Chlordane
0.006
0.013
0.019
0.071
0.165
0.364
0.140
0.687
0.0063
0
alpha-BHC
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.010
0.014
0.030
0.014
0.050
0.0004
0
beta-BHC
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.027
0.0002
20
cis-Nonachlor
0.013
0.033
0.047
0.096
0.146
0.298
0.134
0.559
0.0051
0
Dieldrin
0.013
0.033
0.070
0.087
0.174
0.476
0.172
1.050
0.0082
0
Endosulfan 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.438
0.959
0.405
2.550
0.0245
46
Endosulfan sulfate
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.057
0.125
0.262
0.115
0.915
0.0076
41
Endrin
0.017
0.047
0.068
0.115
0.220
0.407
0.175
0.895
0.0067
0
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.000
0.004
0.005
0.008
0.013
0.018
0.010
0.037
0.0003
15
gamma-Chlordane/ trans-
nonachlor
0.030
0.084
0.134
0.267
0.385
0.780
0.360
1.470
0.0135
0
Heptachlor
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.015
0.005
0.021
0.0002
7
Heptachlor epoxide
0.003
0.006
0.014
0.024
0.044
0.101
0.039
0.152
0.0014
0
Hexachlorobenzene
0.103
0.122
0.155
0.239
0.394
0.733
0.337
1.120
0.0093
0
Methoxychlor
0.036
0.046
0.072
0.090
0.130
0.342
0.160
1.490
0.0100
0
Mi rex
0.003
0.005
0.007
0.014
0.026
0.048
0.018
0.050
0.0005
0
Oxychlordane
0.000
0.006
0.021
0.037
0.072
0.138
0.056
0.201
0.0019
2
Total chlordane
0.061
0.155
0.242
0.512
0.747
1.566
0.690
2.871
0.0263
0
PCB-016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.029
0.072
0.027
0.196
0.0018
38
PCB-017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.027
0.061
0.023
0.142
0.0014
40
PCB-018
0.000
0.003
0.004
0.018
0.046
0.100
0.039
0.246
0.0022
13
PCB-020
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.019
0.056
0.121
0.057
0.481
0.0039
0
PCB-022
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.019
0.052
0.093
0.039
0.231
0.0023
5
PCB-026
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.008
0.020
0.044
0.017
0.092
0.0009
18
PCB-028
0.005
0.008
0.016
0.055
0.125
0.282
0.124
0.982
0.0081
0
PCB-031
0.004
0.006
0.010
0.035
0.088
0.186
0.074
0.442
0.0038
0
PCB-037
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.008
0.022
0.030
0.014
0.070
0.0006
23
PCB-040
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.023
0.056
0.020
0.147
0.0012
25
1. List restricted to analytes with detection in majority of samples. Cut off at about 45% of samples with non-detects.
83
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 9, cont. Human health endpoint fish fillet tissue summary statistics. Units in ng/g ww.
HH-fish analytes (ng/g ww)
Min.
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Mean
Max.
S.E. of
mean
% ND1
PCB-041
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.020
0.045
0.017
0.142
0.0011
35
PCB-042
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.019
0.104
0.229
0.080
0.493
0.0045
13
PCB-043
0.008
0.025
0.039
0.205
0.346
1.070
0.312
1.550
0.0147
0
PCB-044
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.100
0.273
0.719
0.231
1.160
0.0117
0
PCB-045
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.014
0.029
0.012
0.085
0.0008
43
PCB-048
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.009
0.045
0.102
0.038
0.257
0.0023
18
PCB-049
0.005
0.011
0.030
0.090
0.228
0.599
0.200
1.050
0.0102
0
PCB-053
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.017
0.038
0.014
0.080
0.0008
40
PCB-056
0.002
0.003
0.007
0.029
0.118
0.267
0.084
0.507
0.0045
0
PCB-058
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.010
0.017
0.006
0.029
0.0003
35
PCB-059
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.017
0.035
0.013
0.087
0.0007
30
PCB-060
0.005
0.008
0.016
0.049
0.126
0.336
0.107
0.649
0.0055
0
PCB-063
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.008
0.026
0.061
0.020
0.119
0.0010
8
PCB-064
0.005
0.007
0.019
0.044
0.141
0.331
0.116
0.645
0.0060
0
PCB-065
0.004
0.007
0.016
0.039
0.081
0.197
0.077
0.386
0.0038
0
PCB-066
0.020
0.034
0.066
0.179
0.544
1.380
0.434
2.330
0.0213
0
PCB-070
0.018
0.026
0.068
0.244
0.421
0.893
0.336
1.500
0.0139
0
PCB-071
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.011
0.043
0.102
0.038
0.298
0.0025
13
PCB-074
0.010
0.019
0.036
0.109
0.289
0.841
0.247
1.340
0.0123
0
PCB-077
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.016
0.036
0.078
0.025
0.100
0.0010
0
PCB-081
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.017
0.032
0.010
0.034
0.0004
20
PCB-082
0.000
0.004
0.010
0.057
0.082
0.260
0.075
0.306
0.0035
10
PCB-083
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.016
0.037
0.091
0.026
0.098
0.0011
13
PCB-084
0.000
0.007
0.012
0.062
0.122
0.349
0.098
0.385
0.0043
5
PCB-085
0.014
0.021
0.055
0.172
0.285
0.884
0.246
1.030
0.0111
0
PCB-087
0.000
0.024
0.044
0.247
0.396
1.320
0.347
1.610
0.0170
3
PCB-089
0.012
0.017
0.052
0.119
0.257
0.708
0.189
0.749
0.0081
0
PCB-091
0.000
0.007
0.013
0.050
0.121
0.350
0.094
0.394
0.0043
8
PCB-095
0.019
0.026
0.068
0.232
0.530
1.450
0.387
1.650
0.0175
0
PCB-097
0.018
0.028
0.050
0.259
0.610
1.950
0.477
2.200
0.0238
0
PCB-099
0.035
0.056
0.150
0.433
0.787
2.260
0.617
2.530
0.0269
0
PCB-101
0.058
0.083
0.223
0.777
1.540
4.540
1.182
5.370
0.0553
0
PCB-105
0.039
0.055
0.119
0.418
0.643
1.900
0.554
2.420
0.0240
0
PCB-107
0.000
0.000
0.024
0.089
0.172
0.477
0.136
0.603
0.0062
23
PCB-110
0.051
0.069
0.153
0.653
1.370
3.910
1.026
4.330
0.0465
0
1. List restricted to analytes with detection in majority of samples. Cut off at about 45% of samples with non-detects.
84
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 9, cont. Human health endpoint fish fillet tissue summary statistics. Units in ng/g ww.
HH-fish analytes (ng/g ww)
Min.
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Mean
Max.
S.E. of
mean
% ND1
PCB-112
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.024
0.045
0.127
0.034
0.138
0.0015
15
PCB-114
0.000
0.007
0.013
0.032
0.062
0.168
0.051
0.200
0.0021
3
PCB-115
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.015
0.035
0.115
0.031
0.139
0.0015
20
PCB-118
0.110
0.239
0.404
1.200
2.230
6.260
1.807
8.560
0.0808
0
PCB-124
0.000
0.004
0.008
0.033
0.058
0.153
0.043
0.180
0.0019
5
PCB-128
0.022
0.030
0.080
0.184
0.339
0.942
0.289
1.450
0.0130
0
PCB-129
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.023
0.046
0.112
0.039
0.257
0.0021
18
PCB-130
0.000
0.009
0.027
0.074
0.185
0.472
0.126
0.634
0.0061
8
PCB-132
0.159
0.376
0.713
1.590
4.200
8.450
2.755
12.700
0.1182
0
PCB-134
0.003
0.004
0.010
0.036
0.082
0.234
0.060
0.267
0.0029
0
PCB-135
0.006
0.009
0.021
0.058
0.170
0.402
0.105
0.433
0.0048
0
PCB-137
0.000
0.005
0.017
0.041
0.079
0.200
0.072
0.440
0.0036
10
PCB-138
0.132
0.222
0.515
1.230
2.610
6.500
1.975
9.560
0.0868
0
PCB-140
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.008
0.016
0.005
0.024
0.0002
35
PCB-141
0.000
0.013
0.031
0.084
0.162
0.346
0.125
0.661
0.0055
5
PCB-142
0.000
0.005
0.012
0.021
0.054
0.136
0.039
0.170
0.0017
5
PCB-144
0.000
0.004
0.010
0.026
0.070
0.172
0.049
0.216
0.0084
3
PCB-146
0.019
0.042
0.091
0.218
0.458
0.985
0.319
1.290
0.0020
0
PCB-147
0.000
0.004
0.009
0.020
0.044
0.088
0.033
0.181
0.0084
3
PCB-148
0.000
0.006
0.015
0.045
0.119
0.286
0.078
0.328
0.0032
3
PCB-149
0.018
0.063
0.142
0.463
1.250
3.570
0.923
4.590
0.0005
0
PCB-151
0.003
0.025
0.060
0.138
0.349
0.654
0.221
0.882
0.0048
0
PCB-154
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.011
0.025
0.054
0.017
0.059
0.0015
3
PCB-156
0.004
0.030
0.055
0.127
0.207
0.535
0.188
1.030
0.0021
0
PCB-157
0.000
0.003
0.011
0.026
0.044
0.126
0.042
0.240
0.0015
10
PCB-158
0.002
0.013
0.031
0.083
0.181
0.595
0.169
0.932
0.0808
0
PCB-164
0.000
0.005
0.013
0.044
0.087
0.210
0.067
0.357
0.0019
8
PCB-166
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.009
0.016
0.042
0.013
0.053
0.0130
15
PCB-167
0.000
0.013
0.027
0.055
0.138
0.321
0.100
0.570
0.0021
5
1. List restricted to analytes with detection in majority of samples. Cut off at about 45% of samples with non-detects.
85
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 9, cont. Human health endpoint fish fillet tissue summary statistics. Units in ng/g ww.
HH-fish analytes (ng/g ww)
Min.
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Mean
Max.
S.E. of
mean
% ND1
PCB-170
0.020
0.038
0.062
0.129
0.289
0.527
0.200
0.799
0.0074
0
PCB-171
0.006
0.012
0.026
0.063
0.129
0.234
0.089
0.296
0.0032
0
PCB-172
0.004
0.008
0.016
0.026
0.059
0.099
0.042
0.158
0.0015
0
PCB-174
0.009
0.011
0.030
0.080
0.157
0.314
0.107
0.394
0.0042
0
PCB-175
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.008
0.016
0.032
0.011
0.039
0.0004
13
PCB-176
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.012
0.048
0.080
0.028
0.117
0.0012
3
PCB-177
0.000
0.016
0.049
0.126
0.313
0.586
0.205
0.753
0.0082
3
PCB-178
0.002
0.009
0.020
0.047
0.122
0.226
0.084
0.319
0.0033
0
PCB-179
0.006
0.009
0.020
0.054
0.136
0.239
0.092
0.373
0.0037
0
PCB-180
0.042
0.121
0.213
0.367
0.894
1.320
0.603
1.860
0.0197
0
PCB-181
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.006
0.018
0.011
0.195
0.0014
43
PCB-183
0.013
0.029
0.053
0.115
0.290
0.459
0.185
0.627
0.0066
0
PCB-184
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.007
0.0001
13
PCB-185
0.000
0.002
0.006
0.016
0.033
0.056
0.023
0.082
0.0008
3
PCB-187
0.031
0.093
0.141
0.339
0.644
1.240
0.477
1.650
0.0167
0
PCB-188
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.006
0.0000
25
PCB-189
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.012
0.022
0.008
0.038
0.0003
0
PCB-190
0.006
0.014
0.025
0.055
0.110
0.182
0.074
0.227
0.0024
0
PCB-191
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.008
0.015
0.025
0.011
0.037
0.0004
3
PCB-194
0.002
0.012
0.024
0.036
0.110
0.222
0.076
0.246
0.0028
0
PCB-195
0.003
0.011
0.013
0.028
0.075
0.111
0.044
0.134
0.0015
0
PCB-196
0.004
0.009
0.013
0.022
0.069
0.102
0.041
0.136
0.0014
0
PCB-197
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.008
0.011
0.005
0.017
0.0002
0
PCB-199
0.010
0.020
0.032
0.050
0.147
0.235
0.097
0.311
0.0033
0
PCB-200
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.005
0.011
0.018
0.008
0.029
0.0003
0
PCB-201
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.013
0.027
0.042
0.019
0.065
0.0007
0
PCB-202
0.003
0.007
0.009
0.029
0.065
0.097
0.042
0.151
0.0015
0
PCB-203
0.008
0.018
0.027
0.055
0.149
0.239
0.099
0.341
0.0034
0
PCB-205
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.010
0.014
0.006
0.019
0.0002
8
PCB-206
0.003
0.006
0.011
0.022
0.049
0.088
0.036
0.106
0.0012
0
PCB-207
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.015
0.006
0.019
0.0002
0
PCB-208
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.008
0.017
0.027
0.013
0.037
0.0004
0
PCB-209
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.009
0.015
0.033
0.012
0.043
0.0004
0
Sum_PCBs
1.372
2.638
5.297
12.409
28.844
70.827
20.985
85.266
0.8867
0
PBDE-015
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.011
0.035
0.013
0.074
0.0006
0
1. List restricted to analytes with detection in majority of samples. Cut off at about 45% of samples with non-detects.
86
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 9, cont. Human health endpoint fish fillet tissue summary statistics. Units in ng/g ww.
HH-fish analytes (ng/g ww)
Min.
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Mean
Max.
S.E. of
Mean
% ND1
PBDE-017
0.000
0.004
0.006
0.044
0.078
0.233
0.080
0.622
0.0052
3
PBDE-028
0.006
0.021
0.039
0.285
0.401
0.640
0.307
1.890
0.0153
0
PBDE-047
0.327
0.663
1.690
5.080
7.890
15.600
6.449
34.600
0.2788
0
PBDE-049
0.010
0.029
0.081
0.192
0.298
0.513
0.242
1.420
0.0106
0
PBDE-066
0.000
0.007
0.013
0.020
0.040
0.129
0.044
0.236
0.0023
5
PBDE-085
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.034
0.007
0.048
0.0005
28
PBDE-099
0.035
0.054
0.099
0.222
0.375
1.160
0.410
1.780
0.0184
0
PBDE-100
0.076
0.175
0.239
0.903
1.690
2.360
1.164
5.890
0.0472
0
PBDE-139
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.006
0.0001
43
PBDE-140
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.008
0.0001
30
PBDE-153
0.016
0.036
0.045
0.070
0.119
0.239
0.108
0.425
0.0037
0
PBDE-154
0.023
0.035
0.053
0.130
0.262
0.412
0.195
0.961
0.0075
0
PBDE-183
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.006
0.0000
13
PBDE-184
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.0000
33
PBDE-197
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.0000
40
PBDE-206
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.013
0.019
0.009
0.067
0.0004
40
PBDE-209
0.000
0.076
0.099
0.136
0.223
0.248
0.171
1.280
0.0063
5
Sum_PBDEs
0.800
1.295
2.779
7.328
10.963
21.368
9.278
47.957
0.3782
0
1. List restricted to analytes with detection in majority of samples. Cut off at about 45% of samples with non-detects.
87
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 10. List of other human health endpoint fish fillet tissue PCBs analyzed but with insufficient
detections for CDF calculations.
analyte
% non-detects
analyte
% non-detects
analyte
% non-detects
PCB-019
58
PCB-073
98
PCB-126
53
PCB-023
98
PCB-078
98
PCB-127
100
PCB-024
85
PCB-079
98
PCB-131
50
PCB-025
48
PCB-080
100
PCB-136
55
PCB-027
53
PCB-086
100
PCB-139
100
PCB-029
70
PCB-088
98
PCB-143
100
PCB-030
100
PCB-090
48
PCB-145
80
PCB-034
85
PCB-092
100
PCB-150
58
PCB-035
68
PCB-093
98
PCB-152
68
PCB-036
93
PCB-094
60
PCB-155
63
PCB-038
100
PCB-096
68
PCB-159
98
PCB-039
50
PCB-098
90
PCB-161
100
PCB-046
60
PC B-100
68
PCB-162
93
PCB-047
100
PC B-102
53
PCB-165
95
PCB-050
95
PC B-103
55
PCB-168
100
PCB-051
53
PC B-104
100
PCB-169
60
PCB-054
100
PC B-106
100
PCB-173
50
PCB-055
75
PC B-108
75
PCB-186
98
PCB-057
60
PC B-109
100
PCB-192
100
PCB-061
100
PC B-120
80
PCB-198
100
PCB-062
100
PCB-122
88
PCB-204
100
PCB-069
90
PCB-125
73
88
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 11. List of Eco-endpoint whole fish analytes with summary statistics and % non-detects.
Analytes
Units
Median
Minimum
Maximum
% ND
Arsenic
Hg/g ww
0.140
0.033
0.384
0
Cadmium
Hg/g ww
0.025
0.004
0.083
0
Chromium
Hg/g ww
0.235
0.083
0.865
0
Copper
Hg/g ww
0.974
0.503
4.298
0
Lead
Hg/g ww
0.050
0.036
0.831
65
Mercury
Hg/g ww
0.031
0.013
0.118
0
Nickel
Hg/g ww
0.330
0.019
5.971
5
Selenium
Hg/g ww
0.374
0.103
0.732
0
Zinc
Hg/g ww
19.067
12.080
32.804
0
2,4'-DDE
ng/g ww
0.52
0.2
2.02
32
4,4'-DDE
ng/g ww
49.27
2.81
231.22
0
2,4'-DDD
ng/g ww
0.95
0.22
5.44
32
4,4'-DDD
ng/g ww
9.66
0.32
41.72
0
4,4'-DDT
ng/g ww
0.6
0.12
2.13
16
2,4'-DDT
ng/g ww
0.25
0.21
1.23
38
total DDTs
ng/g ww
59.41
3.13
269.76
0
Total chlordane
ng/g ww
0.63
0
14.64
8
Alpha-BHC
ng/g ww
0
1.32
1.32
97
HC benzene
ng/g ww
0.49
0.21
1.58
8
Lindane
ng/g ww
0
0.2
0.2
97
Heptachlor
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
Aldrin
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
H Epoxide
ng/g ww
0
0.18
0.19
92
Oxychlordane
ng/g ww
0.15
0.15
2.46
43
G Chlordane
ng/g ww
0
0.12
2.34
43
Endosulfan 1
ng/g ww
0
0.33
3.48
81
A Chlordane
ng/g ww
0.18
0.17
5.09
32
T Nonachlor
ng/g ww
0.4
0.19
3.92
8
Dieldrin
ng/g ww
0.53
0.26
1.83
3
Endrin
ng/g ww
0.45
0.24
1.18
57
Endosulfan II
ng/g ww
0
0.3
1.76
84
Cis Nonachlor
ng/g ww
0
0.15
0.83
95
Endrin Ketone
ng/g ww
0
0.23
0.23
97
Mi rex
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
89
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 11, cont. List of eco-endpoint whole fish analytes with summary statistics and % non-detects.
Analytes
Units
Median
min detected
value
maximum
% non-detects
PCB-8
ng/g ww
0
0.64
0.64
97
PCB-18
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PCB-28
ng/g ww
0
2.16
2.16
97
PCB-44
ng/g ww
0
0.27
1.62
68
PCB-52
ng/g ww
0.45
0.32
2.14
22
PCB-66
ng/g ww
0.47
0.21
2.69
8
PCB-77
ng/g ww
0.23
0.23
3.69
41
PCB-101
ng/g ww
1.69
0.51
5.5
3
PCB-105
ng/g ww
0.38
0.14
1.87
5
PCB-118
ng/g ww
1.45
0.5
6.08
0
PCB-126
ng/g ww
0
0.19
0.19
97
PCB-128
ng/g ww
0.32
0.2
1.3
14
PCB-138
ng/g ww
3.11
1.3
9.01
0
PCB-153
ng/g ww
2.05
0.69
6.95
0
PCB-169
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PCB-170
ng/g ww
0.27
0.23
0.72
46
PCB-180
ng/g ww
0.64
0.28
4.14
3
PCB-187
ng/g ww
0.54
0.28
1.79
3
PCB-195
ng/g ww
0
0.2
0.2
97
PCB-206
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PCB-209
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PCB sum
ng/g ww
11.87
3.6
36.6
0
PBDE-47
ng/g ww
4.53
2.75
13.51
3
PBDE-66
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PBDE-99
ng/g ww
0
0.31
1.73
84
PBDE-100
ng/g ww
0.83
0.41
3.18
19
PBDE-138
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PBDE-153
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PBDE-154
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PBDE-183
ng/g ww
0
0
0
100
PBDE sum
ng/g ww
5.25
0.54
16.69
0
90
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 12. Fillet tissue concentration cumulative distribution frequency (CDF) estimates for analytes detected at >40% of MCR sites. Upper and lower
90% confidence bounds are shown. Units are ng/kg ww except mercury is mg/kg ww.
91
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
0 11 lO'J 2000 3000 4000 5000 8000 7000
DDD 2 4
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i 1 r
0 200 400 800 our 1000 1200
DDT_2_4
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
* * * 90% Confidence Limits
T
0
500
1000
1500
DDE 2 4
CDF Estimate
* * - 90% Confidence Limits
r
T
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
DDD 4 4
-------
8-
?-
8-
50000
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
100000 150000
DDE 4 4
"T
200000
8-
8-
3-
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I I I I I
50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
TOT DDIs
93
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T I I !
T
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
DDT 4 4
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
0 100 200 300 400 800 800 700
alpha. Chlordane
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
30
alpha.BHC
8-
8-
S-
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I 1 i 1
100 200 300 400
cis.Nonachlor
500
94
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
* 90% Confidence Limits
T I I I I I
0 8 1U 15 20 25
l eta. BHC
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1
600
Dieidrin
200
400
800
1000
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1000 1500
EndosulfanJ
T"
0
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i
200
400
Endrin
I
800
8-
5?"
S"
800
95
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i r
400 800
Endosulfan sulfate
800
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I I
10 20
gamma. BHC.. Lindane.
i
30
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
"T 1 1 1 \ 1 1 j
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
gamma Chlordane trans nonachtor
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
r
0 50 100 150
Heptachlor epoxide
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
* * * 90% Confidence Limits
i 1 1 1 r
0 5 10 15 20
Heptachlor
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 I
T
200 400 600 800 1000
Hexachlorobenzene
-------
G
O I
o
CO
8-
5?-
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I
500
1000
1500
Methoxychlor
o
o
o.
to
8-
Si-
S-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
ii
50
1
100
Qxychlordane
200
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
g-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
_1 j | ! | |
10 20 30 40 50
Mi rex
s-
c
2
£
5?~
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Totchlord
97
-------
o,
CO
g-
%¦
r-
20
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
40
PBDE 015
-r~
60
8-
"E
©
I
8-
3-
8-
600
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1000
PBDE. 028
1600
98
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 r
0 lO'i IK' 300 400 500 600
PBDE,017
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
r
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
PBDE,047
-------
a -
o _
cO
8-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
r
o -
0 00 4'Ki 600 800 1000 1200 1400
F'BDE 049
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
PBDE.085
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
o
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
150
0
50
200
100
PBDE.066
o
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0
500
1000
1 UU
PBDE 099
99
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I
1000
2000
3000
PBDE.100
4000
I
5000
8-
5?-
8-
6000
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
100
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
~~r~
80
20
40
PBDE.119
80
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
2
PBDE.138
-------
g
0>
E
if
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0
2
3
5
1
4
8
PBDE.139
8-J
8-
¦e
§
I
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0
200
300
400
PBDE.153
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
g-
¦g
0)
I
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0
2
4
6
8
PBDE 140
g-|
§-
15
a
S-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
200
400
0
800
800
PBDE.154
101
-------
G
O
CDF Estimate
4 ~ 90% Confidence Limits
3
0 0 U i J 15 2 0 2 5 3.0 3,5
PBDE 171
o
o -
o.
CO
8-
s-
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 r
3 4
PBDE. 183
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
E
2
£
5?~
CDF Estimate
¦ * ¦ 90% Confidence Limits
o -
0.0
0.5
3.5
1.5
2.5
3.0
PBDE 184
102
-------
8-
?
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
2
PBDE.191
g-
?
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
-1
2
PBDE.197
T
4
103
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
¦ * 90% Confidence Limits
T 1 1 1 !
50 100 150 200
PBDE.196
1 r
2 3
PBDE201
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 1
4 5
-------
s-
CDF Estimate
* ¦ 90% Confidence Limits
o -
PBDE 203
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
PBDE. 207
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
§-
8-
1
£
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
Q -
0
V)
30
50
20
40
80
PBDE. 208
8-J
£
5
6
8-
CDF Estimate
* * 90% Confidence Limits
200
400
1000 1200
0
800
800
PBDE. 209
104
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
H 1 f 1
0 10000 20000 30000
Sum PBDEs
S.
§
40000
O
o
Q
cO *
£
$
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
20
40
T
80 80
PCB017
o
o
t
S.
§
100
120
140
105
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
- 90% Confidence Limits
i 1 1 1 r
0 *>u 100 150 200
PCB 016
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
| | 1 1 1 11
u 50 100 150 200 250
PCB 018
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
10
PCB.019
15
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
50
T
100
PCB 022
150
T
200
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
o -
e-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
500
0
100
200
300
400
PCB 020
o -
e-
o _
CDF Estimate
¦ * * 90% Confidence Limits
10
20
5
25
35
15
30
PCB 025
106
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
"T"
80
20
40
PCB.026
80
a
o ¦
o
c0 *
&
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
200
t r
400 800
PCB.Q28
800
T
1000
107
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
¦ * - 90% Confidence Limits
1 1 1 1 1
0 5 10 15 20
PCB.027
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 1
T
0 100 200 300 400
PCS 031
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
~r
2
~r~
10
i
14
6 8
PC El 035
12
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
10
PCB.039
15
T
20
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
o -
e-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PCB037
o -
e-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
50
150
100
PCB.040
108
-------
IT
g
§
ff
?¦
a-
40
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
60 80
PCB. 041
100
|
120
140
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1500
PCD 043
109
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
* ¦ 90% Confidence Limits
T I I I I l
0 1DU ->00 300 400 500
PCB 042
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
400
1200
200
800
800
1000
PCB. 044
-------
-g
s
if
?-
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
T
50
T
40
RGB 045
80
80
-g
0)
o
if
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
T
50
100 150
PCB048
T
200
~r
250
110
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
5
i r~
15 20
PCB.048
10
30
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I
200
I 1
400 800
PC B 049
800
1000
-------
o,
CO
g-
%¦
r-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
10
20
PCB.081
I
30
¦~T
40
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I 1
200 300
PCB.056
500
111
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i i i i r~
0 20 40 80 80
PCB 053
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
-------
CDF Estimate
* * 90% Confidence Limits
1 I I J I I
0 5 1 0 15 20 25
PCB058
$-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i r
o -
I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
PCB. 060
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
40
PCB 059
80
80
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
~r
o
~T~
40
1
80
PCB. 083
-f~
80
I
100
20
120
-------
o
CO
8-
s
-------
£
9-
r-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I
50
I
100
150
PCB.071
,
200
I
250
300
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 1
40 60
FCB.Q77
20
80
114
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0 m 4UU 800 800 1000 1200
PCB.074
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 5 1 0 15 20 25 30
PCB081
-------
CD
O
&
- CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o
50
100
200
250
300
0
150
PCB 082
o
o --
o _
-------
g-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
1500
0
GOO
1000
PC3 087
S-|
8-
¦ CDF Estimate
* 90% Confidence Limits
o -
0
20
80
120
40
60
100
PCB.090
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
g-
CDF Estimate
¦ * 90% Confidence Limits
o
0
200
400
800
F*~B 089
g-
o _
CM
CDF Estimate
¦ * 90% Confidence Limits
o
300
400
0
100
200
PCB.091
116
-------
&
?-
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i
0
H
4
PCB.094
8-
8-
S-
R-
i 'J
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
4
PCB09S
117
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0 500 1000 1500
PCB 095
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
0 500 1000 1500 2000
PCB 097
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1000 1500
PCS 099
2000
g-
?-
8-
¦g
1
1000
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
2000 3000
PCD 101
T
T
4000 5000
118
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I
4
pre ioo
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
-r~
60
20
40
PCS. 102
-------
8-
s-
8-
T
10
PCB.103
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
15
s-
s-
8-
T
100
200
300
PCB.107
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
400 500 800
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
o -
Q _
CO
g-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
2500
0
500
1500
1000
2000
PCB.105
o
o -
8-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0
1000
-1U0U
2000
4U u
PCB.110
119
-------
&
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
40
i r~
60 80
PCB 112
120
140
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I 1-
60 80
PCB 115
120
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
¦ ¦ ¦ * 90% Confidence Limits
T
0 50 1 00 150 200
PCB. 114
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
8000
2000
4000
6000
PCB 118
-------
o
o
CO *
8-
a-
T
0
50
100
PCB.124
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I
150
S.
o
o
o
CO *
&
T
200
400
600 800
PGB.128
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
1000 1200 1400
o
o
t
£
*¦
8-
121
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
0 2 4 8 8 10 12 14
PCB.126
CDF Estimate
¦ * * 90% Confidence Limits
1 1 1 1 1 1
u 50 100 150 200 250
RGB. 129
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
300
PCB.13Q
I
500
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
t r
10000 12000
2000 4000
8000 8000
PCB.132
122
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
"1 1 i 1 T"
Q U 40 60 80
RGB. 131
I CDF Estimate
f .... go% Confidence Limits
i 1 1 1 1 r
0 50 100 150 200 250
PCD 134
-------
8-
o
CM
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
0
200
400
inn
300
PCB.135
5 -£
tD
6 |
8-
Si-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
100
200
PCB.137
uu
400
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
1
0)
o
X.
o
s-
s-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
4
PCS 136
o
GO
¦ff
-------
8
¦ CDF Estimate
* 90% Confidence Limits
T 1 1 1 1
0 5 10 15 20
RGB 140
Q
CO '
TL
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
1
no
I 1
600 800
PCB.14S
1 1
1000 1200
4fM
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I l
150 200
PCB.14B
125
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1
o n 100 150
PCB 1 47
CDF Estimate
¦ * 90% Confidence Limits
1 I
T
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
PCB, 149
-------
G
O "
o
cO
8-
«-
"T"
0
T
2
T
3
PCB-150
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o
o -
8-
?
s
0,0
0.5
X
1.0
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T"
1.5
PCB.152
2.0
3.0
126
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i !
T
0 J'O 400 600 800
PCB.151
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i r
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PCB.154
-------
g
§
ff
?¦
a-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
2 3
PCB.155
4
¦E
1
i
50
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
-T 1
100 150
PCB.157
I
200
127
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
* 90% Confidence Limits
0 200 4U0 800 800 1000
PCS 158
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
nr
0 200 400 800 800
PCB.158
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I I l
100 150 200
PCB 164
250 300
I
350
¦g
1
S"
S-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
100
200 300
PCB. 167
400
I
500
128
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
~T~
40
I
10
[) 30
PCB 188
50
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
~r
2
1
4
PCB. 189
-------
8-
g
§
CDF Estimate
* * * 90% Confidence Limits
0
400
800
600
PCB 170
S-
s-
CDF Estimate
*» 90% Confidence Limits
150
0
50
100
PCB 172
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
8-|
g-
g-
?-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
© -
200
300
0
u
150
250
PCB. 171
8-I
8-
8-
?-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
0 5 10 18
PCB. 173
129
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
PCB.174
SI-
S'
8-
?¦
8-
400
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
"T
120
PCB.176
130
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0 10 20 30 40
PCB 175
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
T
0 200 400 600
PCB. 177
-------
CDF Estimate
* ¦ * 90% Confidence Limits
t 1 1 1 1 1 r~
0 Oil) 150 200 250 300
PCB.178
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1
T
0 500 1000 1500
PCB.180
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 1 1 F~
0 100 200 300
PCB 179
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T 1 1 1 T
0 50 100 1^0 200
PCB 181
-------
a -
o _
cO
8-
T.
CD
O
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
400
0
500
300
600
PCB 183
o -
8-
o
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
80
0
20
40
PCB. 185
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
i 1 1 1 1 1 r
0 1 2 3 4 5 8
PCB. 184
o
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
S00
0
1000
1C00
PCB. 187
132
-------
¦ CDF Estimate
.... 90% Confidence Limits
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PCB.188
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
0
50
200
100
PCB.190
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
g-
CDF Estimate
¦ * 90% Confidence Limits
o
0
30
20
1 J
FCB 189
8-
o _
CM
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
O
0 10 20 30
FCB. 191
133
-------
CD
O
&
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
G
0 50 100 150 200 250
PCB 194
o
o --
o _
-------
rz
-------
o
CO
8-
v.
o
GDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o
300
0
1 txj
150
200
250
350
PCB.203
o
CO
8-
CDF Estimate
¦ * ¦ * 90% Confidence Limits
I 1 1
o
0 20 40 80 80 100
PCB.208
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
tr
m
o
£
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o
15
0
5
10
pre 205
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o
r
o
5
15
10
RGB 207
136
-------
g-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
0 10 20 30
RGB. 208
§-
o _
to
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
20000
0
40000
80000
80000
Sum_PCBs
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
S-l
o _
to
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0 10 20 30 40
PCB.209
§-|
o _
CO
¦e
8
I
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0.2
0.1
0.3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
Hgjngkg
137
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
Appendix 13. Whole fish tissue concentration cumulative distribution frequency (CDF) estimates for analytes detected at >40% of MCR sites. Upper and
lower 90% confidence bounds are shown. Units are ng/g ww except trace elements are in mg/kg ww.
138
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
0.5
10
I
1 5
HCBereen
"J
CDF Estimate
¦ 90% Confidence Limits
1 1 1 f 1
0.0 U 10 1.5 2.0
G Chlord
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
~~l
2 0
Oil 0.5
1.0 1.5
Oxychlor
25
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
T
5
0 1
2 3
A Chlord
-------
8-
O
CO
8-
*¦
8-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Lim ts
~T~
3
T Nonach
o
CO
8-
S-
8-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
5 10
TOT Chlordane
15
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
o
g"
o _
(O
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
! 1
0,0 u 10 1 3
Dieldrln
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
r~
0,5
0,0
1.0
X2 4 DDE
1.5
2.0
140
-------
8-
¦g
I
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o
0
100
150
200
X4_4_DDE
o
8-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
r
o -
T
0 10 20 30 40
X4 4 DDD
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
1
0)
o
X.
o
s-
8-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
X2 4 DDD
Q
GO
¦ff
o
if
T
0,0
0.5
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1.0
X4 4 DDT
1.5
¦J 0
141
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I 1 I I I f
0,0 0 "> 0,4 0 6 0.8 1 0
X2 4 DDT
1.2
8-
8-
S-
8-
o.o
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
I
0,5
1.0
PCBJQ52
I
1.5
r~
2.0
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
g-
¦£
s
if
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
50
0
150
100
200
250
TOT DDTs
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
-1 r~
1.0 1.5
PCB 086
0.0 0.5
2.5
142
-------
&
$'
s-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1
2
PCB 077
~r
3
o
o
o
CO
¦E
QJ
o
£
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
0.0
0.5
1.0
PCB 105
1.5
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
O _
CO
8-
r
I
£
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0
1
3
4
5
PCBJ01
O _
CO
8-
r
I
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
2
3
8
1
5
4
PCB_118
143
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
~t I 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 u 0,4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1,2
PCB 128
o
1
8-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
4
1
5
6
/
PCBJS3
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
~r
8
PCB 138
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
__j j_
0.3 0.4
PCB 170
0.0 0.1
0,2
0,5
06
0 7
144
-------
o _
CO
¦g
8
CDF Estimate
* * 90% Confidence Limits
o
0
1
2
3
4
PCB 180
o
o -
Q
CO
8-
!
a
CDF Estimate
- * 90% Confidence Limits
o -
25
30
35
20
PCB sum
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
CDF Estimate
* * 90% Confidence Limits
! ,
00 0 J 1.0 1.5
PCBJ87
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 I 1 I I I I I
0 2 4 8 8 10 12 14
PBDE 047
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
f
1.0
-r~
2.5
0.0
0.5
1.5 2.0
PBDE 100
3.0
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
o
o
o
CO
o
CD
o
o
OJ
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o
5
0
10
15
PBDE sum
146
-------
o
o ...
CO
5-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
T
T
T
-¦0 40 60 80 1 00 120
HgppbCin
o _
Q3
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0.05 0,10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0,30 0,35
As_mg, kgwt
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
o _
CO
s-
CDF Estimate
- - - - 90% Confidence Limits
T
U 1
0.3
0,7
0
0 4
0,5
06
SEppmcin
o _
CO
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o
0.04
0.02
0,06
0,08
Cd_mg kgwt
147
-------
o
co
8-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
a -
04
0.6
t)
Crmg kgwt
o _
CO
s-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
o -
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.8
pb_mg. kgwt
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
8-
O .
CO
R-
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
2
C
T
3
T
4
if] K JWt
8-
O .
SO
o .
CO
9-
8-
T
0
T
3
Ni_mg. kgwt
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
"T"
5
148
-------
CDF Estimate
90% Confidence Limits
1 1 1 1
15 20 25 30
Zn_mg. kgwt
-end-
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
149
-------
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment
150
-------
-------
SEPA
US EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-1128
------- |