Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment
EPA-910-R-17-002March 2017Mid-Columbia River FishToxics AssessmentEPA Region 10 ReportAuthors:Lillian Herger, Lorraine Edmond, and Gretchen HayslipU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10www.epa.gov
Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics AssessmentEPA Region 10 ReportAuthors:Lillian Herger, Lorraine Edmond, and Gretchen HayslipMarch 2017U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 101200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900Seattle, Washington 98101Publication Number: EPA-910-R-17-002Suggested Citation:Herger, L.G., L. Edmond, and G. Hayslip. 2016. Mid-Columbia River fish toxicsassessment: EPA Region 10 Report. EPA-910-R-17-002. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.This document is available at: www.epa.gov/columbiariver/mid-columbia-river-fish toxics-assessment
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessmenti
Mid-Columbia Toxics AssessmentList of AbbreviationsAbbreviationDefinitionBZ#Congener numbers assigned by Ballschmiter and ZellCDFCumulative Distribution FunctionCMChannel markerCRColumbia ichloroethaneDODissolved OxygenECOEcologicalEPAUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyGISGeographic Information SystemHHHuman HealthHCBHexachlorobenzeneHRGC/HRMSHigh Resolution Gas Chromatography / High Resolution Mass SpectrometryICPMSInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryIDEQIdaho Department of Environmental QualityLCRLower Columbia RiverMCRMid-Columbia RiverMDLMinimum detection limitNANot ApplicableNDNon-detectedODEQOregon Department of Environmental QualityORPOxidation-Reduction PotentialPBDEPolybrominated diphenyl etherPCBPolychlorinated biphenylQAPPQuality Assurance Project PlanQCQuality ControlRARERegional Applied Research EffortREMAPRegional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment ProgramS.E.Standard errorSOPStandard Operating ProcedureSPMDSemi-Permeable Membrane DeviceStd. Dev.Standard DeviationSVScreening ValueTSSTotal Suspended SolidsUSGSUnited States Geological Surveyii
Mid-Columbia Toxics AssessmentList of DDdecimal degreesggramg/daygrams per dayLliterMmetermg/Kgmilligrams per Kilogrammg/Lmilligrams per Litermlmillilitermmmillimeterng/gnanograms per gramng/Kgnanograms per kilogramNTUnephelometric turbidity unitskmkilometerppbpart per billionppmpart per millionpptpart per trillionRMriver milerkmRiver kilometersq. kmSquare kilometerμg/gmicrograms per gramμg/Lwwmicrograms per Literwet weightiii
Mid-Columbia Toxics AssessmentTable of ContentsList of Abbreviations .iiList of Units .iiiI. Abstract . 1Human Health Findings . 1Ecological Findings . 2II. Introduction . 3A. Background . 31. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring Program . 32. Columbia Geography. 43. Human Uses in the Basin . 64. Past Studies of Toxic Contaminants in the Basin . 75. Concerns for Toxics in Fish Tissue. 8B. Purpose and Objectives . 14III. Study Overview . 15A. Survey Design . 15B. Site Selection. 15C. Assessment Indicators . 161. Fish Tissue . 162. Other Supporting Data. 18IV. Methods . 20A. Quality Assurance . 20B. Field Sample Collection. 201. Fish Tissue Sampling . 202. Water Quality, Physical Habitat, and Invasive Species Sampling. 21C. Fish Tissue Laboratory Methods . 22D. Data Analysis Methods. 231. Application of Weighting Factors and Use of CDFs. 232. Screening for Levels of Concern . 24V. Results. 29A. Extent of Resource Represented by the Sampling . 29B. Extent of Fish Species Sampled. 291. HH-fish . 292. Eco-fish. 30C. Fish Tissue Results – Human Health Endpoints . 311. Mercury. 342. DDT and Related Compounds. 353. Chlorinated Pesticides. 364. Dioxins and Furans. 375. PCBs . 386. PBDEs. 38D. Fish Tissue Results– Ecological Endpoints. 391. Inorganics-- Mercury and Trace Metals/metalloids . 412. DDTs . 423. Chlorinated Pesticides. 43iv
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment4. PCBs . 445. PBDEs. 45VI. Discussion . 46A. Relative Extent of Contaminants of Concern (COCs). 46B. Comparisons to Other Mainstem Columbia Results . 491. Lower Columbia River: reach-wide Eco-fish study (Hayslip et al. 2007). 492. Lower Columbia River: select sites HH fish study (Nilsen et al. 2014) . 513. Mid-Columbia River: select sites HH fish study (Washington Department ofEcology) . 514. Mid-Columbia River: select sites HH and Eco fish study Hanford Reach . 535. Upper Columbia River: select sites HH and Eco-fish tissue risk assessment. 54C. Comparisons to Other Regions . 551. Mid-continent Large Rivers: reach-wide HH and Eco fish study . 552. National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA): nation-wide HH fish study. 56VII. Conclusions and Recommendations. 58VIII. Acknowledgements. 59IX. References . 60X. Appendices . 65v
Mid-Columbia Toxics AssessmentList of FiguresFigure 1. Example of a cumulative distribution function (CDF) graph. 24Figure 2. MCR reach extent represented by the species sampled for HH-endpoint tissuewith sample counts. 30Figure 3. MCR extent represented by the species sampled for eco-endpoint tissue withsample counts. . 31Figure 4. CDF plot of mercury concentrations in fillet fish tissue, MCR reach (N 718). 35Figure 5. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the DDT and DDT breakdown productshuman-health cancer SVs in fillet tissue (N 718 rkm). 36Figure 6. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the four chlorinated pesticides human healthcancer SVs in fillet tissue (N 718 rkm). . 37Figure 7. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the total PCBs cancer and non-cancer SVsin fillet tissue (N 718 rkm). 38Figure 8. CDF plot of total PBDEs in fillet fish tissue, MCR reach (N 718). 39Figure 9. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the trace element general aquatic SVs inwhole-fish tissue (N 718 rkm). 42Figure 10. Percent of MCR reach exceeding four mercury SVs in whole-fish tissue(N 718 rkm). . 42Figure 11. Percent of MCR reach exceeding the DDT SVs in whole fish tissue (N 718rkm). . 43Figure 12. CDF plot of total chlordane concentrations in whole fish tissue, MCR reach(N 718 rkm). . 44Figure 13. CDF plot of total PCBs concentration in whole fish tissue, MCR (N 718 rkm). 44Figure 14. CDF plot of total PBDE concentration in whole fish tissue, MCR (N 718 rkm). 45Figure 15. Exceedances of Human Health SVs, cancer and non-cancer with 90%confidence bounds. . 47Figure 16. SV exceedence for Eco fish analytes, with 90% confidence bounds. . 48Figure 17. Comparison of MCR (N 718 rkm) and LCR (N 611 sq.km) percentexceedances of the general aquatic SV in whole-fish tissue for eight analytes(Source: Hayslip et al. 2007). . 50Figure 18. Total DDTs concentrations in Eco-fish composite samples at each samplesite, MCR. . 53vi
Mid-Columbia Toxics AssessmentList of TablesTable 1. State fish consumption advisories issued for the MCR and tributaries. 10Table 2. Summary of MCR and tributaries on State 303d Lists1 as impaired by toxiccontamination. 12Table 3. Field methods used for MCR data collection. . 22Table 4. Laboratory methods used for MCR fish tissue analyses. . 23Table 5. Human health SVs used to evaluate MCR fillet fish tissue results. SVs for twoeffects levels with two fish consumption rates. Units are all ng/g (ppb) filletwet weight. . 26Table 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). . 28Table 7. Summary of MCR sampling extent by State. 29Table 8. Summary statistics and percentile results for HH (fillet) analytes with availableSVs, MCR (N 718 rkm). . 33Table 9. Summary of human health (fillet) SV exceedances expressed as % MCR reach(N 718 rkm). . 34Table 10. List of Human health (fillet) dioxins and furans included in MCR analysis. 37Table 11. Summary statistics and percentile results for Eco-fish tissue (whole body),MRC (N 718 rkm). . 40Table 12. Eco-fish tissue (whole body) SV exceedances expressed as % MCR reach(N 718 rkm). . 41Table 13. Chemical concentrations (ng/g ww) in largescale sucker fillet tissuecomposites from three LCR sites (Source: Nilsen et al. 2014). . 51Table 14. Comparison of small whole fish mean chemical concentrations (ng/g ww) forfive Mid-continent large river reaches from Blocksom et al. (2010) and theMCR mean reported at reach-scale. Standard error of mean in parens. 56Table 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). 57vii
Mid-Columbia Toxics AssessmentList of MapsMap 1. Columbia River basin showing major basins and Mid-Columbia reach. . 5Map 2. Mid-Columbia River showing major dams (red bars) and 42 data collectionlocations (blue circles). 7List of AppendicesAppendix 1. Land cover conditions within assessment areas. . 65Appendix 2. Description of Mid-Columbia sample sites. 67Appendix 3. Fish tissue analytes and associated methods and detection limits. 69Appendix 4. Human health endpoint PBDE analytes. Method HRGC/HRMS EPAmethod 1614 for PBDEs. . 72Appendix 5. Human health endpoint fillet tissue PCBs analytes (method HRGC/HRMSEPA method 1668). . 73Appendix 6. Summary of habitat and water chemistry data. Methods used for chemicalanalysis is in the QAPP (ODEQ 2010a). Summarized results withsummary statistics to provided general description of conditions. . 74Appendix 7. Description of human health endpoint fish composite samples collectedfrom 41 probability sampling sites Mid-Columbia River. . 79Appendix 8. Description of Eco-fish composite samples collected from 37 probabilitysampling sites in the Mid-Columbia River. . 81Appendix 9. Human health endpoint fish fillet tissue summary statistics. Units in ng/gww. 83Appendix 10. List of other human health endpoint fish fillet tissue PCBs analyzed butwith insufficient detections for CDF calculations. . 88Appendix 11. List of Eco-endpoint whole fish analytes with summary statistics and %non-detects. . 89Appendix 12. Fillet tissue concentration cumulative distribution frequency (CDF)estimates for analytes detected at 40% of MCR sites. Upper and lower90% confidence bounds are shown. Units are ng/kg ww except mercury ismg/kg ww. 91Appendix 13. Whole fish tissue concentration cumulative distribution frequency (CDF)estimates for analytes detected at 40% of MCR sites. Upper and lower90% confidence bounds are shown. Units are ng/g ww except traceelements are in mg/kg ww. . 138viii
Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessmentix
Mid-Columbia Toxics AssessmentI. AbstractThe Columbia River Basin is a priority watershed for States, Tribes, federal agencies,and nonprofit organizations and was designated as a ‘critical ecosystem’ that warrantsprotection in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2006-2011 Strategic Plan(USEPA 2006a). Past studies by EPA and others have found significant concentrationsof toxic contaminants in fish and the waters they inhabit throughout the basin (USEPA2009). However, the Mid-Columbia River main stem reach, between Bonneville Damand Grand Coulee Dam, has never been assessed for concentrations of contaminantsin fish tissue. This study of the Mid-Columbia River is an effort to fill this informationvoid.A spatially distributed probabilistic sample design was used to select 42 sample sitesalong the Mid-Columbia River main stem (MCR) to represent the entire 718 km (440mile) reach. During the summers of 2008 and 2009, field crews collected two types offish samples to represent both human health and ecological endpoints. Water qualityand physical habitat data were also collected at each site. Fish tissue was analyzed fora variety of toxic contaminants. Water samples were analyzed for physical and chemicalcharacteristics and trace elements.Toxic contaminants were measured in fillet tissue for the human health endpoint and inwhole fish tissue for the ecological endpoint. Using the probabilistic study design, thedata were analyzed to produce statistical results that are expressed in terms of theextent of the Mid-Columbia reach (MCR). The results were also compared to literaturescreening values (SVs) to put the results in context for interpretation. Multiplecontaminants were found to exceed SV concentrations. Mercur
Appendix 8. Description of Eco-fish composite samples collected from 37 probability Appendix 9. Human health endpoint fish fillet tissue summary statistics. Units in ng/g Appendix 10. List of other human health endpoint fish fillet tissue PCBs analyzed but Appendix 11. List of Eco-e
When I found One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish I was sure I’d found the best learn-to-count book and that it would explain how to count without a grown-up to get you started.7 Here’s how it begins: One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. Black fish, blue fish old fish, new fish. This one has a litt
r. Seuss's One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish is a clas-sic children's story, a simple rhyming book for beginning readers. We need a similar rhyme to help people grasp the problems afflicting Alberta's native fish species. It might read like this: Two fish, one fish, dead fish, no fish, No grayling or goldeye, something's amiss .
Fish noun Fish noun Examples Freshwater fish live in rivers and lakes. Freshwater fish live in rivers and lakes. Saltwater fish live in oceans and seas. Saltwater fish live in oceans and seas. The fish is swimming in the water. The fish is swimming in the water. The fish is looking at the bait. The fish is looking at the bait. freshwater fish .
The following tables show common New York freshwater fish and some other interesting fish. Also see the “Key to Identifying Common New York Freshwater Fish” at the end of this chapter. NIAGARA RIVER/ LAKE ERIE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER CHEMUNG ALLEGHENY RIVER RIVER MOHAWK RIVER OSWEGO RIVER/ FINGER LAKES RAMAPO RIVER HOUSATONIC RIVER LAKE ONTARIO .
Lost River at Hwy 39 (Merrill) 7.44 6.2 Klamath River at Miller Island Boat Ramp Klamath Strait at USBR Pump Station F 20.8 7.73 Lost River DS of Anderson-Rose Dam Williamson River at Williamson River Store 1.64 1.9 Sevenmile Creek, Wood River Valley Wood River at Weed Road 14.8 0.515 Lost River at Bonanza
MITSUBISHI METALWOOD CUSTOM SHAFTS OPTIONS mitsubishirayongolf.com Model Flex Weight Torque Tip Size Butt Size Launch Spin Tip Stiffness Fubuki J 60 X 66 3.9 0.335 0.600 Mid Mid Mid S 64 3.9 0.335 0.600 Mid Mid Mid R 61 3.9 0.335 0.600 Mid Mid Mid Fubuki J 70 X 74 3.6 0.335 0.600 Mid
Mad River rinity Salmon Redwood eek Scott Shasta River River River River River River River Crater Lake Spring Creek Summer Lake gue Sprague Upper Klamath Lake Illinois TH RIVER W i l l i a m s o n R i v e r ood River A-Canal OREGON CALIFORNIA 0 50 100 KILOMETERS 050100 MILES Chiloquin Yreka Fort Jones Seiad Valley Agness Prospect Somes Bar .
API 6A Flanges Catalogue. API 6A - TYPE - 6B 13.8 MPA (2000 PSI) Size B OD C (MAX.) K P E T Q X BC N H LN HL JL Ring Number R or RX 2 1/16 53.2 165 3 108 82.55 7.9 33.4 25.4 84 127 8 20 81 60.3 53.3 23 2 9/16 65.9 190 3 127 101.60 7.9 36.6 28.6 100 149.2 8 23 88 73.0 63.5 26 3 1/8 81.8 210 3 146 123.83 7.9 39.7 31.8 117 168.3 8 23 91 88.9 78.7 31 4 1/16 108.7 275 3 175 149.23 7.9 46.1 .
