By 

Joseph F. Rinella, Pixie A. Hamilton, and Stuart W . McKenzie 

Graphic design and layout by Joan M. Rubin 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1090 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes 

only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993 

Free on application to the 

Books and Open-File Reports Section 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Federal Center, Box 25425 

Denver, CO 80225 
Established in 1879, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) has provided scientific information on the 

Nation's water, energy, and mineral resources for the 

benefit of Americans. A major part of the mission of 

the U.S. Geological Survey is to assess the quantity 

and quality of the Nation's water resources and to provide information to 

assist resource managers and policymakers at Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local levels in making sound management decisions. To a significant 

extent, these responsibilities are being carried out in the National WaterQuality Assessment (NA WQA) Program, whose goals include providing 

a sound understanding of the natural and human factors that affect water 

quality. 

The NA WQA Program will include investigations in 60 study 

areas throughout the Nation that represent a variety of geologic, 

hydrologic, climatic, and cultural conditions. These studies are building 

blocks for understanding regional differences in physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics of the Nation's ground water and surface water. 

An important goal of the program is to ensure that key findings are 

available to the public so that they can be aware of the quality of the 

Nation's water resources. 

This report is part of a series of nontechnical publications based on 

results from the NA WQA Program. The purpose of these publications is 

to describe key findings from the individual investigations and to relate 

those findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. 

By disseminating this information, the U.S. Geological Survey seeks to 

increase awareness of water-quality concerns when considering the 

Nation's environmental issues. 

Director 
A sa former governor of 

an arid state, I have a 

special appreciation for the 

value of water resources. 

Unless we have sufficient 

supplies of good quality water 

when and where we need 

it-and understand how 

natural and human conditions 

affect water quality-we cannot wisely manage this vital 

resource. As part of the 

LSJ .-----------' 

A 

National Water-Quality Assessment, the U.S. Geological 

Survey will continue to work 

with state and local agencies 

to assess and protect our 

Nation's water resources. 

Bruce Babbitt, Secretary 

U.S. Departmeru of the Interior 

D DT I N ou R E 

NATIONAL AN D 

1: improve the quality of 

our water, we need to turn 

greater attention to the 

polluting effect of water 

running off our 

agricultural fields, city streets, and 

suburban developments. We need a 

strong Clean Water Act with standards for non-point-source pollution 

and incentives that will unleash the 

creative and technological potential of 

our firms, farmers, and families to 

reduce and prevent polluted run-off 

at the source. 

President Bill Clinton 

NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY 

ASSESSMENT STUDY AREAS 

EXPLANATION 

D STUDIES STARTED IN 

FISCAL YEAR 1991 D STUDIES PROPOSED FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 1994 

STUDIES PROPOSED FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 1997 

-- BOUNDARY OF 

STUDY AREA 

N T • 

CERN 

A major national concern 

is the degradation of water 

quality that results from nonpoint sources of pollution, 

such as agricultural runoff 

that contains fertilizers and 

pesticides. Although crop 

yields are improved greatly 

by applications of fertilizers 

and pesticides, the increased 

production often comes with 

a price that is measured in 

terms of effects on human 

health, streams, fish, and 

other wildlife. One of the 

first studies in the National 

Water-Quality Assessment 

Program was done to characterize these effects on 

streams and fish in the 

Yakima River Basin.' Soil, 

water, sediment, and fish 

were sampled for a variety of 

chemicals that have been and 

(or) continue to be used in 

the basin. 

This report focuses on the 

occurrence of one of these 

chemicals in the Yakima 

River Basin-the insecticide 

DDT. Even though two 

decades have passed since its 

production and distribution 

was banned (1972), DDT and 

its breakdown products DDE 

and DDD are still widely dispersed in the environment. 

Concentrations of DDT, 

DDE, and DDD remain 

elevated in agricultural soils, 

'The U.S. Geological Survey is preparing a detailed interpretive report on the 

occurrence of DDf and 90 other pesticides in the Yaldma River Basin. 

K E Y C 0 N C E R N S 

Where do DDT and its breakdown products DDE and 

DDD [Total DDT (T-DDI) = DDT + DDE + 

DDD] occur? In agricultural soils? In stream 

water? In stream sediment? In fish? In birds and 

mammals? 

What are the sources ofT-DDT in the basin? How does 

T-DDT enter streams? 

Have concentrations of T-DDT decreased in stream 

water and fish since the ban on the production and 

distribution of DDT in 1972? 

How do concentrations ofT-DDT in fish in the Yakima 

River Basin compare with concentrations elsewhere 

in the Nation? 

Are T-DDT concentrations of concern relative to human health and fish predators in the Yakima River 

Basin? 

stream water, suspended and 

streambed sediment, and fish 

in the Yakima River Basin. 

Elevated concentrations of 

these compounds are a continued concern of residents, 

resource managers, and 

policymakers in the basin. 

Why? Because its broad toxicity can affect many organisms other than insects for 

which it was designed, such 

as fish and birds. Its persistence in the environment can 

lead to dangerous accumulations and adversely affect 

the reproductive capabilities 

of birds and other wildlife. 

And , its cancer-causing 

potential can possibly affect 

human health. 
2 

I 

r_j_ _____ _ 

T H E y 

WAS HINGTON 

• Nile 

\ 

A K ) M A 

BENTON 

10 20 MILES 

10 20 KILOMETERS 

KLICKITAT 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN 

Drainage area: 6, 155 square miles 

Population: 250,000 (1990) 

EXPlANATION 

D YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION 

-··-BOUNDARY OF DRAINAGE BASIN 

CANAL Arrow indicates direction 

of flow 

A K I M A R I v E R 8 A 

TALL PINE TREES NEAR THE TEANAWAY 

RIVER IN THE FORES T ED HEADWATERS OF 

THE BASIN. YAK I MA COUNTY RANKS FIRS T I N 

PRODUCT ION OF APPLES . 

s I N 3 
4 S T R EAM F L 0 W MANAG E M E N T I N 5 

TH E YAK I MA 

HISTORY OF IRRIGATION IN THE YAKIMA 

RIVER BASIN 

A t the time of the Lewis and fi Clark Expedition, the Yakima 

River Basin was inhabited by Indians. Many of the names used for 

streams and lakes in the basin were 

derived from the early Indian culture, such as Naches, which means 

"plenty of water," and Cle Elum, 

which means "swift water." 

White settlement began in the 

1850's when Ben Snipes selected the 

area for cattle raising because he 

''found grass tall enough to reach 

THE Y AKIM A RI VER NEA R E L LEN S BUR G, 

WAS HIN GTO N . 

the belly of his horse.'' The Yakima Indian Reservation, which was established in 1855, 

spans about 1 million acres of land in the southwestern part of the basin. 

Organized development, management, and regulation of water resources began in 

the basin after the passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902. The Reclamation Service 

(now known as the Bureau of Reclamation) of the Department of the Interior initiated 

a study of water storage in the basin and the development of irrigation projects. More 

than 121,000 acres were irrigated, which is about 25 percent of the present (1993) irrigation. The irrigated water came from natural flows in the Yakima River and its tributaries. 

Irrigated water was later released from five major storage reservoirs that were built in 

the next 30 years; the last and largest, Cle Elum Lake, was completed in 1933. 

In addition to the Reclamation irrigation projects, the Wapato Irrigation Project 

was developed and constructed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs between 1896 and 1930. 

This irrigation district is the largest in the basin, and in the valley accounts for about 

one-third of the irrigated land and one-third of the water use. 

THE YAK IM A RIV E R B A S I N IS O NE O F 

THE MOS T INTENS I V EL Y I RRIGA T ED 

AR E AS I N THE NA T ION AND I NVOLV E S 

IRR I GATI O N OF ABOUT 500 , 000 ACR E S. 

Today (1993), the Yakima River Basin is one of the most intensively irrigated areas 

in the Nation, and involves irrigation of about 500,000 acres. The basin has 6 governmentconstructed irrigation districts and more than 50 small irrigation systems. 

Onni Pera/Jl, US. Bureau of Reclamation 

The Yakima River and its tributaries provide a critical link to society's livelihood 

and prosperity in the basin. This precious resource is the necessity of life, providing water 

for intense agricultural activities, municipal water supplies, and hydroelectric power; supporting fish and wildlifu; and furnishing many recreational pursuits. The resource is limited, 

however, so competing water demands are held in a delicate balance. THE Y AKIMA R IVER NEAR G RANDVIEW, 

WAS HINGT O N . 

Harvey R. Nelson Jr. , US. Bureau of Reclamation 

The Yakima River, which 

is one of the largest rivers in 

Washington, flows southeastward for about 215 miles from 

the eastern slopes of the forested Cascade Range to the 

Columbia River. The Yakima 

River and its tributaries supply drinking water to the 

cities of Yakima and Cle 

Elum. About 60 percent 

of the total water use in the 

basin is associated with agriculture, which involves 

irrigating about 500,000 

acres. Agricultural water use 

is greatest during the Aprilto-October growing season 

when rainfall in the basin valley typically is at its lowest. 

To meet irrigation needs, 

significant changes have been 

made to the river's natural 

flow. To regulate, divert, and 

distribute streamflow, 5 major 

storage reservoirs, 14 major 

diversion dams, and about 

2 ,000 miles of irrigation 

canals have been constructed. 

The reservoirs are located in 

upstream mountainous areas, 

where annual precipitation is 

greatest. During irrigation 

season, most of the river 

water downstream from the 

city of Yakima is diverted into 

canals. Return flows from 

agricultural land (Wilson 

Creek, Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, and Sulphur Creek 

Wasteway are among the 

largest) account for as much 

as 80 percent of the mainstem flow in the lower valley 

during the irrigation season. 

In addition to meeting 

irrigation needs, the Yakima 

River is regulated to maintain 

required flows for migration 

and spawning of salmon and 

steelhead trout. Fish ladders 

have been constructed on 

diversion dams to allow adult 

salmon to safely head upstream to their spawning 

grounds. Fish screens have 

been placed on entrances to 

canals to prevent juvenile fish 

from becoming trapped in irrigation distribution systems. 

I 

l 

R 

I 

I V E R BAS I N 

S TREAMFW W IN T H E YAKIMA RIVER DURING 

NONIRRIGATION AND IRRIGATION SEASONS, 1988 

During the nonirrigation season, streamflow is typical of unregulated streams with flow that increases 

downstream. The irrigation 

season reflects a managed 

stream with large fluctuations in ~ 

flow because of diversions for a: 

irrigation. Return flows from ~ 2

•

000 

agricultural land account for as g much as 80 percent of the ~ 

main-stem flow in the lower 

valley downstream from the 

city of Yakima during the irriz 

0 

j 

~ 

~ 

) 

1,500 

For comparison purposes, 200 million gallons per day is about 310 cubic feet per second , or 224 ,000 

acre-feet per year. The city of Yakima. with a population of about 50,000, uses more than 10 million 

gallons per day. 

_....IRRIGATION 

<( 

z 

0 

;;;: 

r_j_ _____ _ , . ./ 

-----::-_;.....-~

KLICKITAT 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN 

EXPLANATION 

- IRRIGATED AREA 

D YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION 

_ , _BOUNDARY OF DRAINAGE BASIN 

CANAL-Arr w indicates direction of flow 

~ MAJOR RETURN-FLOW DRAIN 

~ MAJOR DIVERSION 

K A C HE SS LA KE . ONE OF THE F I V E 

M AJOR RES E RVO I RS USE D T O 

R E GU L AT E S T R EAMFL OW T O MEET 

WA T ER N E E D S I N TH E YAK I MA 

R IV E R BAS I N. 
6 SAM 

THE 

PLING STRATE 

YAKIMA RIVER 

The U.S. GeologkW 

Survey began the National 

Water-Quality Assessment 

(NAWQA) study of the 

Yakima River Basin in 1986. 

From 1986 to 1991, hydrologists collected samples of 

soil, water, sediment, and 

fish for analyses of pesticides 

and other water-quality constituents at about 400 sites. 

Analyses were done for more 

than 90 different pesticides in 

water and sediment samples, 

and about 65 pesticides were 

detected. Many of these pesticides were detected in the 

lower Yakima River, which is 

downstream from intense 

agricultural activities. This 

report focuses on the occurrence of one of these 

pesticides-the insecticide 

known as DDT.

2 

Samples were collected 

from the headwaters to near 

the mouth of the river at 

Kiona and along the major 

tributaries and agriculturalreturn flows. The sampling 

strategy was designed to 

reflect different soils, 

seasonal variations associated with weather (snowmelt 

and rainfall runoff), variations in agricultural activities 

and irrigation practices, and 

locations of municipal and 

industrial discharges. The 

diversity of samples permits 

an analysis of the areal distribution of DDT and its 

breakdown products [Total 

DDT (T-DDT) = DDT + 

DDE + DDD] in soil, 

water, sediment, and fish; 

seasonal and longer term 

changes in T-DDT concentrations; and relations between T-DDT concentrations 

and land- and water-use patterns. The sampling design 

provides the foundation for 

understanding where T-DDT 

occurs, what the sources of 

T-DDT are in the basin, and 

whether concentrations of 

T-DDT have decreased since 

the ban on the production and 

distribution of DDT in 1972. 

2 Analytical data for oor and other pesticides detected in samples collected 1987-91 

can be obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey, 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600, 

Thcoma, Washington 98402. 

HYDROLOGIST COLLECT· 

lNG WATER SAMPLES FOR 

ANALYSES OF PESTICIDES 

AND OTHER WATER·QUALITY 

CONS TITUENTS. 

A BUREAU OF RECLAMATION GAG -

ING STATION AT THE SUNNYSIDE 

CA NAL DIVERSION USED TO MONITOR 

STREAMFLOW IN THE YAKIMA RIVER. 

HYDROLOGIST MEASURING STREAMFLOW IN A TRIBUTARY TO THE YAKIMA 

RIVER . 

J 

' 

DDT· 

BUT 

t DDT was prevalent ror about three decades 

after its introduction in the 

early 1940's. As in most agricultural areas of the world, 

crop yields in the Yakima 

River Basin were improved 

by widespread applications. 

However, after its adverse effects on birds and other wildlife and its cancer-causing 

potential became well known, 

the production and distribution of DDT was banned nationwide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

in 1972. 

Only days after DDT 

was banned, another chemical, known as dicofol (trade 

names such as Kelthane, 

Acarin, Hilfol, Mitigan, and 

Cekudifol), was registered 

with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency as an agent 

that would kill mites, particularly on citrus and cotton 

crops. Dicofol originally contained as much as 15 percent 

DDT. Since about the mid1980's, U.S. manufacturers of 

dicofol have pledged to reduce 

DDT concentrations to 0.1 

percent. Although application 

of dicofol was approved for 

hops (new plantings only), 

mint, and apples in the basin, 

little of the compound has 

been used because target pests 

have become resistant. 

Does the banning of 

DDT 20 years ago and the 

minimal use of dicofol mean 

that DDT is no longer a threat 

in the Yakima River Basin? 

Probably not because some of 

the characteristics that made 

DDT desirable as an insecticide make it a potential hazard in the environment for 

many decades. The persistence of DDT and its breakdown products assure a longlasting presence in soil, 

streams, fish, birds, and other 

animals. 

BANNED 

ORGOTTEN 

H A Z A R D 0 U S 

D D 

TRAITS 

T 

0 F 

BROAD TOXICITY. DDT and its breakdown products, DDE and DDD 

[Total DDT (T-DDT) = DDT + DDE + DDD], affect many 

organisms other than insects for which it was designed, such 

as clams, fish, and birds. 

PERSISTENT. T-DDT is chemically stable and is not readily broken down 

by microorganisms, heat, or ultraviolet light. T-DDT can, 

therefore, persist in soil, water, sediment, and animal tissue 

for years. 

Low SOWBILITY IN WATER AND HIGH ACCUMULATION IN FAT. 

T-DDT is relatively insoluble in water. However, T-DDT is 

stored readily in the fatty tissue in animals, where it is resistant 

to metabolic breakdown. 

FooD-CHAIN EFFECT. Once in streams, T-DDT makes its way into 

streambed sediment and into plants and animals at the base 

of the food chain. Fish acquire T-DIJT through uptake in food, 

by feeding on, for example, smaller fish or stream invertebrates 

(aquatic insects, snails, and clams). Fish also accumulate 

T-DDT direcdy from water passing over their gills. Terrestrial 

animals and birds eat the contaminated fish and invertebrates, 

and so on up the food chain. 

7 

CROP YIELDS IN THE YAKIMA RIVER 

BASIN HAVE BEEN . AND CONTINUE 

TO BE.IMPROVED BY THE WID E -

SPREAD APPLICATIONS OF PESTICIDES. 
8 

What is DDT? 

What are DDE and 

DDD? 

What is the chemical 

composition of the 

DDf compounds? 

What are the possible 

effects on human 

health? 

How much is too much 

for human consumption? 

How much is too much 

for aquatic life and 

fish predators? 

s 0 M E 

DDT is a general-purpose insecticide. 

DDT breaks down to other compounds DDE (in the 

presence of oxygen) and DDD (in the absence of oxygen). 

DDT compounds are chlorinated hydrocarbons (also 

known as an organochlorines) that consist of carbon, 

chlorine, and hydrogen. 

D D T- DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane 

D D E-DichloroDipheny ldichloroEthy lene 

D D D-DichloroDipheny!Dichloroethane 

DDT and its breakdown products [Total DDT (T-DDT = 

DDT + DDE + DDD] can affect the human nervous system, 

liver, kidneys, and skin. The compounds have been classified 

as probable human carcinogens (compounds that cause 

cancer) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not set a 

standard for the protection of human health against which 

T-DDT concentrations in water or fish can be compared. 

This report presents preliminary and theoretical degrees of 

risk that reflect the lifetime (considered to be 70 years) 

chance of contracting cancer from consumption ofT-DDT in 

water or fish . Risk calculations are based on the current 

(1993) understanding of the cancer-causing potency ofT-DDT 

(extrapolated from studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the effects on laboratory animals). The calculations include some uncertainty because of limited 

information on human fish-consumption rates and the toxicity 

ofT-DDT (see p. 17 through 20 for further explanation of 

human risk). 

Consumption of water-Daily consumption of 2 quarts 

of drinking water with aT-DDT concentration of 0.1 microgram per liter' by a 150-pound person over a 70-year lifetime 

corresponds to an incremental increase in cancer risk of 1 

per 1 million people. 

Consumption of fish-Weekly consumption of one 

5-ounce serving of fish filets with a T-DDT concentration of 

0.01 microgram per gram• of fish by a 150-pound person 

over a 70-year lifetime corresponds to an incremental 

increase in cancer risk of 1 per 1 million people. 

The Food and Drug Administration established an action 

level of 5 micrograms ofT-DDT per gram of whole fish (wet 

weight). Action levels are established to regulate levels of 

contaminants in human food and animal feed sold to the 

public. Action levels do not apply to consumers of noncommercial, locally caught fish, such as sport fishermen and 

their families. 

The most conspicuous effect ofT-DDT has been on the 

reproductive capabilities of fish-eating birds, such as the 

great blue heron and the bald eagle. Studies have shown that 

elevated concentrations result in thin egg shells that break 

easily in the nest. 

The chronic-toxicity criterion for T-DDT in water for the 

protection of freshwater aquatic life, established by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and adopted by the 

Washington State Department of Ecology, is 0.001 microgram 

per liter. 

The guideline for the protection of fish predators, 

established by the National Academy of Sciences, is 1 

microgram ofT-DDT per gram of a whole fish (wet weight). 

3

0ne microgram is equal to one-millionth of a gram or one-thousandth of a milligram, and a milligram is equal to the weight of about six crystals of salt. One 

microgram per liter also is expressed as one part per billion (analogous to about 

one person in China). 

4 0ne microgram per gram is equal to one part per million (analogous to about 

one person in the State of Idaho). 

D 

GOOD FOR FRUITS-Bigger apples, juicier fruits that are free of unsightly worms . . . all benefits resulting from 

DDT dusts and sprays. 

FOR THE HOME-Helps to make 

healthier, more comfortable homes . . . protects your family from 

dangerous insect pests. Use DDT 

powders and sprays as directed . . . then watch the bugs " bite the 

dust" ! 

D T 

The great expectations held for DDT 

have been realized. During 1946, 

exhaustive scientific tests have shown 

that, when properly used, DDT kills a 

host of destructive insect pests, and is a 

benefactor of all humanity. 

GOOD FOR ROW CROPS-25 more barrels of potatoes per acre 

. . . actual DDT tests have 

shown crop increases like this! 

DDT dusts and sprays help 

truck farmers pass these gains 

along to you. 

GOOD FOR STEERS-Beef grows 

meatier nowadays . . . for it's a scientific fact that -compared to 

untreated cattle-beef-steers gain up ~ to 50 pounds extra when protected 

from horn flies and many other pests 

with DDT insecticides. 

E X CERPTS FROM A FULL - PAGE 

COLOR ADVERTISEMENT F O R DDT 

IN THE JUNE 30 , 1947 TIME 

MAGAZINE. 

F A c T s • 

• 

9 

THE HISTORY OF DDT 

FROM MIRACLE TO MENACE 

"DDT was a miracle: Highly toxic to insects, virtually insoluble in water ... it 

seemed to be the universal solution to insect problems." 

DDT was the first of a family of synthetic chemicals that revolutionized man's war 

against insects. It was first produced in 1874 by 

a German chemist, Othmar Zeidler. Its 

importance as an insecticide was not • 

recognized until the work of 

a Swiss chemist, Paul Muller, 

in 1939. In 1941, the 

used DDT successfully to control the 

Colorado potato beetle on farms. In 1948, Muller 

received the Nobel Prize for his work. 

DDT seemed to be a miracle insecticide. It was used all over 

the world to improve crop yields by controlling many pests. From 1940 to 1970, 

more than 4 billion pounds were used, with 80 percent used in agriculture. Production reached 

its maximum in the United States in 1961 when 160 million pounds were manufactured; 

this accounted for nearly one-fourth of the Nation's insecticide use. DDT also was an effective control for insects that carried diseases, such as malaria and yellow fever. It was used 

during World War II by Allied Forces to control mosquitoes and as a personal insecticide 

in clothes to control lice. In the 1950's and 1960's, municipal foggers traveled the roads 

and sprayed DDT into the air to eliminate mosquitoes; gasoline-powered lawn mowers were 

adapted to drip DDT into the hot exhaust system to assure temporary relief from mosquitoes 

in the homeowner's yard. 

The DDT miracle, however, was short lived. Its broad toxicity affected many organisms other than insects for which it was designed, such as fish and birds. Its persistence led 

to dangerous accumula- , tions in animals. By the 

1960's, the "food-chain ' effect" (accumulation of 

DDT and its breakdown 

from low to high in the 

tract public attention. The 

were on the reproductive 

peregrine falcon, for inextensive parts of its 

These environmental 

health risks associated 

in Silent Spring by the 

Rachel Carson. The book 

citizens all over the counwork for the decision by 

Protection Agency to ban 

bution of DDT a decade 

products in organisms 

food chain) began to atmost conspicuous effects 

capabilities of birds. The 

stance, disappeared from 

North American range. 

problems and potential 

with DDT were described 

distinguished biologist 

sparked interest among 

try and laid the groundthe U.S. Environmental 

the production and distrilater (1972). 

George JJbodwell, 

Science, November 1984 
10 IS DDT co N TAM I NAT I N G S T R EAMS 

I N TH E YAK I MA R IV E R BAS I N 

I 

IS DDT IN THE STREAMS? HOW WIDESPREAD IS IT? 

CONCENTRATIONS OF DDT PLUS 

DOE PLUS DOD IT DDT) IN 

WATER IN THE YAKIMA RIVER 

BASIN, JULY 1988- Highest con 

centrations are at srtes that recerve 

return flow from agncultural land 

CrttK• , . . . 

\ I( ·~,~< 

: I ~· _/· · 

In July 1988, DDf and 

its breakdown products [Total 

DDf (T-DDf) = DDf + 

DDE + DDD] were detected 

in water at 13 of the 18 sites 

(about 72 percent) sampled in 

the main stem and tributaries 

of the Yakima River during 

the irrigation season (see 

map). At all 13 sites, concentrations equaled or exceeded 

the chronic-toxicity criterion 

of 0.()()1 microgram per liter 

established by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency and adopted as the 

water-quality standard by the 

Washington State Department 

of Ecology for the protection 

of freshwater aquatic life. The 

highest concentrations, as 

great as 0.120 microgram per 

liter, were in agriculturalreturn flows. The lowest con- contaminants from the 

centrations of T-DDf in relatively large return flows 

stream water in July 1988 •• from agricultural land. 

were in the forested head- Concentrations near the 

waters of the basin. These mouth of the river at Kiona 

concentrations were below 

the chronic-toxicity criterion 

and the laboratory-reporting 

level. 5 

In July 1988, T-DDf 

concentrations in water in the 

main stem of the Yakima 

River varied from place to 

place. The highest concentrations were in the lower 110 

miles of the river where the 

basin is farmed intensively 

and where main-stem flow is 

dominated by return flow 

from agricultural land . 

Because of diversions for 

irrigation, main-stem flow 

provides minimal dilution of 

were not as high as those 

sampled in the river where 

tributaries that carry 

agricultural-return flow enter 

the main stem, probably 

because of dilution and the 

se ttling out of T-DDT 

associated with the sediment. 

Concentrations of 

T-DDf were high in streambed sediment at sites that 

received return flows from 

agricultural land. Samples 

collected in Wide Hollow 

Creek during 1987-90 showed 

a maximum concentration of 

2.1 micrograms ofT-DDf per 

gram of streambed sediment. 

5The labora!Ory reporting level is the lowest reliable concentration for a particular 

method of analysis that is reported by the laboratory. 

r_j_ _____ _ _j.s;_----;;-_:..-__.c·/_ + ~ 10 20 MILES 

46'-- ---+-- ·· -- I 10 20 KILOMETERS 

KLICKITAT 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN 

EXPLANATION 

D IRRIGATED AREA 

D YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION 

- • · - BOUNDA RY OF DRAINAGE BASIN 

CA -A row indicates direction of flow 

CONCENTRATIONS OF DDT PLUS ODE PLU S 

DOD IT-DDT). IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER - The 

chronic-toxicity criterion for T-OOT established by 

the U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency for the 

protection of freshwater aquat ic life is 0.001 

microgram per liter 

? None detected 

V 0.001 to 0.01 

Y Greater than 0.01 

DO CONCENTRATIONS OF T-DDT VARY DURING 

THE YEAR? 

Throughout 1988-89, 

T-DDf concentrations exceeded the chronic-toxicity 

criterion for the protection of 

freshwater aquatic life in 

several agricultural-return 

flows (Moxee Drain, Wide 

Hollow Creek, Granger 

Drain, and Sulphur Creek 

Wasteway). The concentrations ranged from 0.003 to 

0.120 microgram per liter. 

Concentrations were highest 

during peak irrigation and 

heavy rainfall in the agricultural areas. Although lower 

than those of the agriculturalreturn flows, concentrations 

in the Yakima River at Kiona 

equaled or exceeded the 

chronic-toxicity criterion in 

9 of 10 samples that were 

collected year-round in 

1988-89. 

RIDGE AND F URROW IRR I GA T ION PROMOTES SURFACE RUNOFF OF AGR I CUL -

T URAL SOILS T O T HE S TRE AMS. 

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF T·DDT IN STREAMS? 

Are elevated concentrations of T-DDf in streams 

a vestige from the past or is 

T-DDf presently entering 

streams? Analyses of water 

samples collected from May 

1988 through December 1989 

indicate that runoff of 

agricultural soils is a nearcontinuous source of T-DDf 

to the Yakima River. During 

peak irrigation and periods of 

heavy rainfall , contaminated 

agricultural soils erode from 

fields into the streams. Some 

of this soil remains suspended 

in the water. The amount of 

T-DDf in the water is directly 

related to the amount of suspended sediment (see graph). 

A portion of the suspended 

particles settles out and 

carries some T-DDf to the 

stream bottom. Some T-DDf 

dissolves in the water. Dissolved T-DDf is released 

directly from suspended and 

streambed sediment. Some 

T-DDf also dissolves in 

runoff that enters streams 

from agricultural land. 

Analyses of a few 

1 1 

samples of agricultural soils 

show that concentrations of 

T-DDf are about four times 

higher than concentrations of 

T-DDf in the suspended sediment in the water and streambed sediment (see bar chart). 

Apparently, soil eroded from 

agricultural land is the major 

source of T-DDf in streams. 

Because of the large reservoir of T-DDf in agricultural 

soils, the compounds are 

likely to be present in stream 

water and stream sediment for 

many decades. 
12 

0.08 .--.----.---.--

CONCENTRATIONS OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

DDT PLUS DOE PLUS DOD IT-DDT) IN WATER IN 

MOXEE DRAIN, 1988-89--The amount ofT-DDT in 

water is directly related to the amount of 

sediment in the water 

TURBID STREAM WATER 

AT THE JUNCTION OF 

GRANGER DRAIN AND THE 

YAKIMA RIVER, WHICH 

RESULTS FROM SURFACE 

RUNOFF OF AGRICULTURAL 

SOILS DURING PEAK 

IRRIGATION AND PERIODS 

OF HEA VY RAINFALL. 

CONCENTRATIONS OF DDT PLUS DOE PLUS DOD IT-DDT) IN 

AGRICULTURAL SOILS ARE AT LEAST FOUR TIMES HIGHER 

THAN THOSE IN SUSPENDED AND STREAMBED SEDIMENTEach bar represents a median; the number of samples with 

concentrations above the •median concentration• equals the 

number of samples with concentrations below it 
ARE CONCENTRATIONS OFT-DDT CHANGING IN STREAMS? 

Concentrations of 

T-DDT in the Yakima River 

have decreased since the ban 

on DDT in 1972. Concentrations in the main stem at 

Kiona decreased from about 

0.06 microgram per liter in 

1969 to generally less than 

0.01 microgram per liter in 

1990 (see graph). However, 

the 1990 level is still as much 

as 10 times higher than the 

chronic-toxicity criterion for 

the protection of freshwater 

aquatic life established by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The long-term 

decrease in concentrations of 

T-DDT in stream water 

results, in part, from decreased concentrations of 

T-DDT in agricultural soils. 

In addition, the decrease in 

concentrations ofT-DDT in 

stream water probably is a 

consequence of reduced soil 

erosion from agricultural 

fields and less suspended 

sediment. Over the past 

20-30 years, erosion of soils 

in the Yakima River Basin 

has been reduced because 

(1) irrigation practices have 

changed (from less use of 

ridge and furrow irrigation 

to more use of sprinkler and 

drip irrigation), (2) cropping 

patterns have changed (fewer 

acres are used to grow row 

crops, such as sugar beets, 

potatoes, com, and beans, 

and more acres are used to 

grow permanent crops, such 

as apples, pears, and 

grapes), and (3) cover crops 

of grasses and grains have 

been planted in orchards and 

vineyards. Data forT-DDT 

in soils or suspended sediment in the early 1970's are 

not available to confirm the 

relations. Long-term trends 

in T-DDT concentrations at 

other sites in the Yakima 

River and in agriculturalreturn flows are unknown 

because historical data are 

lacking. 

CONCENTRATIONS OF DDT PLUS ODE PLUS ODD IT-DDT) IN THE YAKIMA 

RIVER NEAR KIONA, WASHINGTON HAVE DECREASED DRAMATICALLY 

DURING 1968-1990 BECAUSE OF THE BAN OF DDT IN 1972 

0. 1 100 times criterion 

&\• 

• • • 

• 0.0 1 --:: 10 times criterion 

• 50 SAMPLES COLLECTED BEFORE 1985 WITH • T- DDT COMPOUNDS BELOW THE LABORATORY 

REPORTING LEVEL ARE NOT SHOWN • 

~- • 0.001 ~-- ------ -- Criterion 

z 

..: 

en ONE SAMPLE COLLECTED AFTER 1985 WITH b T- DDT COMPOUNDS BELOW THE LABORATORY 

REPORTING LEVEL IS NOT SHOWN 

0.0001 1967 

r 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 

YEAR 

1991 

EXPLANATION 

LABORATORY REPORT.ING LEVEL-The laboratory 

reporting level is the lowest reliable concentration 

for a particular method of analysis. As methods 

improve, the reporting level is lowered, such as 

in 1985 

CHRONIC-TOXICITY CRITERION FOR T-OOT-Established 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 

protection of freshwater aquatic life 

e CONCENTRATIONS OF T-OOT AT OR ABOVE THE 

LABORATORY REPORTING LEVEL 
14 

I 

lS DD 

IN T H 

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF DDT IN FISH? 

Fish acquire some 

DDT and its breakdown 

products [Total DDT 

(T-DDT) = DDT + DDE 

+ DDD] through uptake in 

food, by feeding on, for 

example, stream invertebrates or smaller fish that 

have fed on contaminated 

plants. Fish also accumulate 

T-DDT directly from water 

passing over their gills. 

T-DDT is stored in the fatty 

tissue of the fish and is not 

readily metabolized (broken 

down). The accumulation of 

T-DDT depends, in part, on 

fat content-fish with a low 

fat content do not accumulate 

as much T-DDT as fish with 

a high fat content-and, in 

part, on age, sex, species, 

and availability of food. 

CONCENTRATIONS OF DDT PWS 

ODE PLUS DOE PLUS DOD (T-DDTI 

IN WHOLE FISH, 1989-1990-Concentrations in resident fish collected 

from the agricultural drains and main. 

stem, including near the mouth of the 

river at Kiona, exceed guidelines 

established by the National Academy 

of Sciences for the protection of fish 

predators, such as birds and other 

wildlife 

E 

M O UNT A IN WHITE · 

F I SH FO R TI SS UE 

ANAL Y SIS . 

,_j_ _____ _ .\ If .. ./ ., _...... .. , _ .. --w--::- -- --1 10 20 MILES 

46''-------+------>c== ·...--- "== .. ~ - 1 10 20 KILOMETERS 

KLICKITAT 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN 

EXPLANATION 

D IRRIGATED AREA 

D YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION 

- .. - BOUNDARY OF DRAINAGE BASIN 

_.__........., CANAL- Arrow indicates direction of flow 

CONCENTRATIONS OF DDT PLUS DOE PLUS 

DOD (T-DDTI IN MICROGRAMS PER 

GRAM, WET WEIGHT- The National Academy of Sciences guideline to protect fish predators equals 1 microgram of T-DDT per gram 

of whole fish , wet weight 

0 Less than 0.01 

0 0.01 to 1 

e Greater than 1 
HOW 

16 RIVER 

"'"' 2.0 ::J ::;; ..J<t 

0. a: ,_ " 0 I 0 0 a: 1-6 

u. u "' u: 0 ~ w 

..J 

'" Z Z 0 0 - I 1_2 

;:= ;::: ~ 

,.A~ 2H5 z.:.::;: 0.8 ~;~ z o .,.c> 

8~ffi Z::Jo. 0.4 < ..J - 0. 0 w w 0 ::;; 0 

CONCENTRATIONS OF'ODT PLUS ODE PLUS ODD tT·DDJ) IN 'LARGESCALE 

11:~ SUCKERS IN THE YAKIMA RIVEit BASIN {NAWOA DATA) ARE ABOUT FOUR 

TIMES HIGHER THAN IN LARGESCALE SUCKERS IN THIRTEEN OTHER 

WEST<ERN STREAMS (U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DATA) 

"' :;,::i! 

..J < 0. a: 

68i)i 

oa:._ 

u.UU. 

O:i~ 

O-I Zzo 

~ ¢~ 

t:~~ 

w- Zl-~ u 0 

~2" u"'a: 

~3~ - 0. 0 w w 0 ::;: 0 

2.0 

1.6 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

0 

U.S. FISH ·& WILDLIFE SERVICE 

DATA FROM THE YAKIMA 

RIVER NEAR GRANGER 

COLLECTED 1970.76 

U.S. GEOLOGICAl SURVEY 

(NAWOA) DATA FROM 

THE LOWER YAKIMA RIVER 

COLLe}rrfD 1989-90 

CONCENTRATIONS OF DDT PLUS DOE PCUS·DOD{T-O[>n'IN lARGESCALE 

SUCKERS FROM 1970 THRQIJGH'1976 ARE SIMILAR TO JHO))E OBSERVED 

IN 1989-90 

Each bar of the graphs represents a median; the number of 

samples with concentrations above the •median concentration• equals the number of samples with concentrations 

below it. The National Academy of Sciences guideline to 

protect fish predators equals 1 microgram of T·DDT per 

gram of whole fish, wet weight 

IN 

River Basin have among the 

highest concentrations of 

T-DDf in the Nation, as suggested by a comparison of this 

study with a national study of 

fish collected by the U.S. Fish 

and )Vtldlife Service at 112 

statiollS in major rivers in 

1984- 85. The median concentration of T-DDT in 

largescaJ.e suckers· collecied in 

1989-90 in the main stem and 

agricultural return-flows of 

the Yakima River Basin 

(about 1.3 micrograms of 

T-DDf P._(:r gram of whole 

tatio~s (more than 90 

rcent). Concentrations of 

-D Df in largescale suckers 

m the· main stem and agricultural return-flows in the basin 

are iiliout four times higher 

than concentrations,ofT-DIJf 

in largescale suckers in 13 

other western streams sampled from 1970 • to 1986 by 

the U.S. Fish and Wtldlife 

Service (see bar chart). The 

highest average concentra-

~ 

Nationwide" concentrations of in freshwater fish are lower now 

than at any ti~ since monitoring' of organochlorine pesticides lWlS initiated in the 196o's, in keeping with the removal ofiDDT from the 

marketplace. U. S. Geological Survey findings for the Nqtional HbterQuality 'Assessment of the Yakima Riw;r, which suggest relatively stable, 

high conc/;ntrations atzer. the past decade, {mply that t1U1 soils ;and sediments of the Yakima watershed h)lrbor, a sizeable mass' of resiaual,DDT. 

ARE 

Data collected ·at 112 

stations in major rivers 

across the nation by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Se ice in 

1976 and 1984-85 indicate 

that concentrations ofT-DDI' 

' in fish showed no significant 

changes at 91 stations, decreased at 20, and increased 

at 1. The concentrations in 

largescale suckers collected 

in the lowerYa\<ima River by 

the U.S. Geological Survey 

in 1989-90 were similar ta 

those collected near Granger 

in the lower Yakima River by 

the ,U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service from 1970 through 

1976 (see bar chart). This 

similarity suggests that even 

though total concentrations 

of T-DDf in stream water 

have declined, the amount of 

T-DDI' in the basin (including in the water, sediment, 

and invertebrates) remains 

high enough t6 maintain elevated concentrations in fish. 
IMPLICATIONS 

MANAGEMENT 

OF 

OF 

FINDINGS ON 

DDT IN THE 

YAKIMA RIVER 8 AS IN 

Even though two 

decades have passed since its 

production and distribution 

was banned, DDT and its 

breakdown products [Total 

DDT (T-DDT) = DDT + 

DDE + DDD] are still 

widely dispersed in the environment. Concentrations of 

T-DDT remain elevated in 

agricultural soil, stream 

water, suspended and streambed sediment, and fish in the 

Yakima River Basin. Concentrations in water commonly 

exceed the chronic-toxicity 

criterion for the protection of 

freshwater aquatic life, which 

was established by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency and adopted as the 

water-quality standard by the 

Washington State Department 

of Ecology. Concentrations of 

T-DDT in fish in the basin are 

among the highest in the 

Nation and commonly exceed 

the guideline for the protection of fish predators established by the National 

Academy of Sciences. 

Highest concentrations in 

water and fish occur in 

agricultural-return flows in 

the lower 110 river miles in 

the basin. 

Are concentrations of 

T-DDT of concern relative to 

human health in the Yakima 

River Basin? Currently 

(1993), no standards for the 

protection of human health 

exist against which T-DDT 

concentrations in water or 

fish tissue can be compared. 

Preliminary and theoretical 

degrees of risk reflect the lifetime chance of contracting 

cancer from consumption of 

T-DDT in water or fish tissue. 

A " lifetime" generally is 

considered to be 70 years. 

Calculated risks are only 

theoretical estimates that 

provide guidance to agencies 

that regulate water quality or 

protect human health and 

information for identifying 

potential health concerns to 

researchers and the public. 

The risks are calculated on 

the basis of current understanding of the cancercausing potency of T-DDT 

(extrapolated from U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency studies of laboratory 

animals, primarily rats and 

mice). These calculations 

include some uncertainty and 

assumptions, including possible differences in toxicological response of humans and 

laboratory animals toT-DDT 

and are based on limited 

information on relevant 

factors, such as fishconsumption rates. A humanhealth impact analysis is 

being conducted by the 

Washington State Department 

of Health to assess ifT-DDT 

concentrations reported in 

this study pose a health threat 

to people who consume fish 

from the Yakima River 

Basin. 
18 

WHAT DO THESE FINDINGS MEAN TO 

PEOPLE WHO DRINK THE WATER? 

In June 1989, treated 

Naches River water from the 

city of Yakima Treatment 

Plant was sampled; no data 

were available for treated 

river water at Cle Elum. The 

concentration of T-DDT in 

the drinking-water supply was 

0.00036 microgram ofT-DDT 

per liter. Daily consumption 

of 2 quarts of city of Yakima 

drinking water by a 150-

pound over a 70-year 

lifetime 

incremental increase in 

cancer risk of about 4 per 1 

billion people (see inset on 

human risks). T-DDT concentrations are low in the 

drinking-water supply because the intake is located upstream from intense agriculture and because the treatment process used by the 

facility removes most of the 

sediment and, thus, most of 

the T-DDT associated with 

RESIDENTS ENJO Y ING THE BEAUTY AND E XCI TEMENT OF 

THE YAKIMA RIVER. 

WHAT DO THESE 

Samples of resident 

fish collected in 1989-90 in 

the Yakima River Basin show 

that T-DDT is detectable in 

fish throughout most of the 

basin. Concentrations of 

T-DDT in all fish collected in 

1989-90 are below an action 

level of 5 micrograms of 

T-DDT per gram of food that 

has been established by the 

Food and Drug Administration to regulate concentrations 

in human food and animal 

feed sold to the public. The 

action level represents the 

limit at which the Food and 

Drug Administration can 

remove products from the 

market. Action levels do not 

apply to consumers of noncommercial, locally caught 

fish, such as sport fishermen 

and their families. 

Concentrations of 

T-DDT are lowest (about 0.01 

microgram of T-DDT per 

gram of whole fish, or an 

FINDINGS MEAN TO PEOPLE WHO 

estimated concentration of 

about 0.008 microgram of 1 

T-DDT per gram of fish 

filet') in species that reside 

in the near-pristine forested 

headwaters, such as rainbow 

trout from the Teanaway 

River. Consumption of one 

5-ounce serving of rainbow 

trout per week over a 70-year 

lifetime corresponds to an ' 

incremental increase in 

cancer risk of about 1 per 1 

million people (see inset, on 1 

human risks). 

fish from the headwaters of 

the basin. The highest concentration of T-DDT in 

Yakima fish occurred in 

Sulphur Creek Wasteway (4.8 

micrograms of T-DDT per 

gram of whole fish or an 

estimated 2 .6 micrograms of 

T-DDT per gram of filet). 

The incremental increase in 

cancer risk associated with 

this concentration is 250 per 

1 million people. Concentrations ofT-DDT in mountain 

whitefish and large-scale 

suckers near the mouth of the 

Yakima River at Kiona ranged 

from 1.7 to 2.8 micrograms of 

T-DDT per gram of whole 

Concentrations of 

T-DDT are highest in species 

that reside in agriculturalreturn flows and in the lower 

llO miles of the Yakima River, 

such as largescale suckers and 

mountain whitefish. Humanhealth risks associated with 

ingestion ofT-DDT in fish in 

the lower llO miles of the 

Yakima River are, therefore, 

higher than those associated 

with ingestion ofT-DDT in 

• fish, or an estimated average 

concentration of 1.4 micrograms ofT-DDT per gram of 

fish filet. Consumption of one 

5-ounce serving of mountain 

whitefish or largescale sucker 

from the lower Yakima River 

per week over a 70-year lifetime corresponds to an 

EAT THE FISH? 

incremental increase in 

cancer risk of about 130 per 

1 million people. 

Human-health risks 

associated with ingestion of 

T-DDT in fish in the Naches 

River are higher than those 

associated with ingestion of 

treated Naches River water 

from the city of Yakima 

Treatment Plant. The concentration of T-DDT in 

mountain whitefish from the 

mouth of the Naches River 

was 0 . 75 microgram of 

T-DDT per gram of whole 

fish, or an estimated concentration of about 0.60 microgram ofT-DDT per gram of 

fish filet . Consumption of 

one 5-ounce serving of 

mountain whitefish from the 

Naches River per week over 

a 70-year lifetime corresponds to an incremental 

increase in cancer risk of 

about 60 per 1 million people 

(see inset on human risks) . 

7 Concentrntions in fish filets are less than concentrations in whole fish because fat 

is less in filets than in whole fish and T-DDf is stored mostly in the fat. Relative 

concentrntions in fish filets are estimated from data collected by the Washington State 

Department of Ecology in 1983. Analyses for fish ftlets collected in October 1991 

by the U.S. Geological Survey are not expected to be complete until 1993. 

19 

ESTIMATED RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH 

SELECTED HUMAN ACTIVITIES 

LIFETIME CHANCE oF D EATH (50 YEARs)8 

Motor vehicle accident 

Drowning 

Fire 

Electrocution 

Lightning 

17,000 in 1 million 

2,500 in 1 million 

2,000 in 1 million 

370 in 1 million 

35 in 1 million 

LIFETIME CHANCE oF CoNTRACTING CANCER (70 YEARS) 

Cigarette smoking" 

Air pollution• 

Five ounces of largescale sucker from Sulphur 

Creek Wasteway per week 

Five ounces of mountain whitefish from the 

Yakima River at Kiona per week 

One-half gallon whole milk per week8 

Two ounces of peanut butter per week8 

Five ounces of mountain whitefish from the 

mouth of the Naches River per week 

Five ounces of rainbow trout from the 

Teanaway River per week 

Two quarts of city of Yakima drinking water 

per day 

80,000 in 1 million 

1,000 in 1 million 

250 in 1 million• 

130 in 1 million• 

100 in 1 million 

80 in 1 million 

60 in 1 million• 

1 in 1 million• 

0.004 in 1 million10 

•crouch, E. A. , and Wtlson, R., 1984, [in] Rodricks, J., and Thrdiff, R., eds., Assessment and Management of Chemical Risks: American Chemical Society, Washington D.C. 

9Number represents risk associated with T-DDf only. Additional contaminants (such as other organic compounds or trnce elements) might be associated with fish in the Yakima River Basin that increase humanhealth risks. 

10Equal to 4 in 1 billion. 

TROUT FISHERMAN I N THE YAKIMA RIVER . 
20 I M p 

DuRING A STUDY IN 1986 AND 1987, THE U.S. FisH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, IN cooPERATION WITH THE ARMY CoRPS OF ENGINEERS, FOUND HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF DDE 

AND P C BS IN BALD EAGLE EGGS FROM NESTS 

ALONG THE COWMBIA RIVER. THE HIGH 

CONCENTRATIONS OF DDE WERE FOUND '10 BE 

ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT EGGSHELL 

THINNING AND POOR REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS 

OF BALD EAGLES NESTING ALONG THE RIVER. 

PRODUCTIVITY LEVELS OF EAGLES FROM THE 

Cow MBIA RIVER DURING 1987-91 WERE 30m 

MORE THAN 50 PERCENT LOWER THAN LEVELS 

FOUND IN STATEWIDE SURVEYS OF EAGLES 

NESTING IN OREGON AND WASHING'ION. 

WHILE PRODUCTIVITY LEVELS OF EAGLES 

ALONG THE CowMBIA RIVER ARE VERY LOW, 

LEVELS OF NESTING POPULATIONS IN THE TWO 

STATES ARE NEARING SOME OF THE RECOVERY GUIDELINES REQUIRED '10 REMOVE THE 

SPECIES FROM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST. 

MARVIN L. PLENERT, REGIONAL DIREG'IDR, REGION 1, 

US. FisH AND UYLDLIFE S ERVICE 

L I 

DOES T - DDT AFFECT FISH PREDATORS? 

Concentrations of 

T-DDf in fish collected from 

agricultural-return flows and 

iliemainsremillilieY~ 

River, including near ilie 

mouili at Kiona, exceed 

guidelines (1 microgram of 

T-DDf per gram of whole 

fish) established by ilie National Academy of Sciences 

for ilie protection of fish predators, such as ilie bald eagle. 

Information is not available 

on concentrations of T-DDf 

in fish predators iliat reside 

in ilie Yakima River Basin. 

Recent studies by ilie U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

however, show elevated concentrations of DDE in bald 

eagle eggs from birds iliat 

nest near ilie mouili of ilie 

Columbia River. The Yakima 

River, which is located about 

300 miles above ilie mouili of 

ilie Columbia River, is one of 

several sources in Washington and Oregon iliat are contributors of T-DDT to ilie 

Columbia River. 

c 

I' 

I 

.j 

or 

l 

A T I 0 N s 

W er-quality improvement is a high priority goal of ilie USDA 

Soil Conservation Service. Wiili the technical potential to achieve 

"zero" return flows from irrigated agriculture, we can significantly 

reduce boili sediment-borne and in-solution contamination of surface 

water. This is especially true of DDT 

and its breakdown products, 

DDE and DDD. 

Lynn A. Brown, State Conservationist, 

Soil Conservation Service 

ER O S IO N CO N T R OL P R OGRA M S , IN C LUDIN G M U L C HIN G F U RR O W S 

W ITH S TRA W , USING SP RI NKL ER A N D DRIP I RRI GA T ION, A ND 

P L A NT I N G COV ER CRO P S OF G RA SS E S I N O R C HAR DS , H AVE B EEN 

I M P L E M E N TED B Y F A RMERS IN THE YAK I MA RIV ER B ASI N . 

WILL T-DDT CONTAMINATION IN STREAMS AND FISH 

IN THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN CONTINUE? 

T-DDf contamination 

of streams and fish is an 

ongoing process, in part, 

because contaminated soils 

are eroded during ilie irrigation season and periods of 

heavy rainfall in agricultural 

areas. The presence of 

T-DDf in agricultural soils is 

attributed to historic applications and to ilie persistent 

chemical makeup of ilie 

compounds. Information to 

assess the environmental 

persistence and fate of DDf 

and its breakdown products in 

ilie agricultural soils in ilie 

Yakima River Basin is insufficient; ilie amount of time it 

takes for DDf compounds to 

break down in ilie soils 

depends on environmental 

conditions, soil type, and 

many complex chemical 

processes. 11 It is, ilierefore, 

difficult to quantify when 

T-DDf contamination in ilie 

streams and fish in ilie 

Yakima River Basin will 

subside or end. Results of this 

study indicare, however, iliat 

chemical breakdown of 

T-DDf is slow because, 

despire ilie ban on ilie production and distribution of DDf 

in 1972, concentrations of 

T-DDf in ilie Yakima River 

near Kiona commonly 

exceeded ilie chronic-toxicity 

crirerion for ilie protection 

of freshwater aquatic life 

between 1972 and 1990. The 

contaminated agricultural 

soils could, ilierefore, provide 

a large and long-rerm reservoir ofT-DDf to streams and 

fish in ilie Yakima River 

Basin for decades to come. 

Federal, Stare, Tribal, 

and local programs have been 

implemented in ilie basin to 

reduce erosion of contaminated soils, iliereby reducing 

ilie amount of T-DDf iliat 

enrers streams. Over ilie past 

20--30 years, erosion has been 

reduced because irrigation 

practices and cropping patrerns have changed and cover 

crops of grasses and grains 

have been planted in orchards 

and vineyards. Erosioncontrol programs implemen11Callahan, M. and others, w.rter-related environmental fute of 129 priority pollutants: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 440/4-79-{)29a, v. 1. 

ted in ilie basin wiiliin ilie last 

10 years include mulching 

furrows with straw and 

irrigating wiili underground 

drip units. These newest 

methods help maintain 

adequare soil moisture and 

help promore less tillage and 

surface runoff. The erosioncontrol programs, which have 

been provided wiili technical 

and cost assistance from local 

Conservation Districts, ilie 

Agricultural Stabilization and 

Conservation Service, and ilie 

Soil Conservation Service, 

have been implemented by 

farmers. Such programs will 

help reduce ilie amounts of 

suspended sediment and 

T-DDf iliat enrer streams. 

21 
22 I M p L I c A T I 0 N s 

IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS ON SAMPLING 

AND RESEARCH STRATEGIES a: • 

in agricultural soils, 

stream water, suspended and 

streambed sediment, and fish. 

For example, concentrations 

T-DDT in stream water are directly 

related to concentrations of suspended 

sediment in the water, and those in fish 

are correlated with concentrations in 

stream water and sediment. These 

relations imply that knowledge of concentrations ofT-DDT in one medium 

provides an estimate of concentrations 

in other media. For example, analyses 

of streambed sediment might be used 

to estimate relative accumulation in 

fish. Such relations can be useful for 

optimizing resources required for monitoring T-DDT in the Yakima and other 

river basins. 

The contmuous replenishment and 

widespread dispersal of T-DDT 

among different media in the 

Yakima River Basin has raised 

concern by researchers of many disciplines (fish biologists, health 

scientists, soil scientists, waterresource managers, and hydrologists). Coordination and cooperation 

among agencies and organizations at 

all levels are essential to implement 

and maintain an effective program 

to assess where T-DDT occurs and 

to determine the sources in the 

Yakima River Basin. 

UJ 

~ ~ 

0 

0 

0 

"' ::;) 

0: 

liS 

0 

"' 3 

.. 

t0 

0 

:I: 

"' u:: 

~ 

0 

0 

0 

"' 

~ UJ 

0 

0 

"' 3 

.. 

b 

0 

0 

0 

0 

"' 3 

.. 

UJ 

0 

0 

"' 3 

.. 

b 

0 

:I: 

"' u:: 

~ 

0 

0 

0 

"' 3 

.. 

UJ 

0 

0 

"' 3 

.. 

b 

0 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

.. SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

• • • •• • .• • • 

• • 

• • • • 

. • 

• • • 

• 

DDT PLUS DOE PLUS DOD IN WATER 

• • I 

• 

• 

• 

STREAMBED 

SEDIMENT 

•• 

.t 

DDT PLUS DDE PLUS DDD IN STREAMBED SEDIMENT 

C OMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION AMONG 

THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND OTHER 

INTERESTED SCIENTISTS AND WATER-MANAGEMENT 

PERSONNEL ARE IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE 

NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM. 

TO MAKE BEST USE OF THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE, 

WE ARE COMMITTED TO FOSTER INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND COOPERATION AMONG ALL RELEVANT 

AGENCIES THROUGH THE DURATION OF THIS LONGTERM PROGRAM. EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT 

AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS A ROLE TO PLAY. 

PHILIP COHEN. CHIEF HYDROLOGIST. 

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION. US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 
A COORDINATED EFFORT 

Coordination among agencies aiui organizations at all levels is essential to understanding the distribution and variability ofT-DDT 

in the Yakimo River Basin. This publication was coordinated with the following Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies and nonprofit organizations. These organizations also provide reports on mony aspects of the Yakimo River Basin, including the distribution 

of surface water, chemical quality of the water, biological studies, and general water resources. General informotion on water resources 

can be obtained by writing to: 

FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

North Pacific Division 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Soil Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Public Information Center 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geological Survey 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

Water Division 

YAKIMA INDIAN NATION 

Environmental Protection Program 

WASHINGfON STATE AGENCIES 

Department of Agriculture 

Pesticide Management 

Department of Ecology 

Public Disclosure 

Department of Fisheries 

Habitat Management Div. 

Department of Health 

Office of Toxic Substances 

Department of Natural Resources 

Photo and Map Sales 

Department of Wildlife 

P.O. Box 2870 

Portland, OR 97208-2870 

301 Yakima St., 

P.O. Box 8ll 

Wenatchee, WA 98807-08ll 

1606 Perry St. , Suite F 

Yakima, WA 98902 

P.O. Box 12999 

Portland, OR 97212 

P.O. Box 632, Fort R 

Toppenish, WA 98948 

ll50 N. Curtis Rd., Mail Code 140 

Boise, ID 83706-1234 

3704 Griffin Lane, SE. 

Suite 102 

Olympia, WA 98501 

1201 Pacific Avenue 

Suite 600 

Thcoma, WA 98402 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

P.O. Box 151 

Toppenish, WA 98948 

P.O. Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504-2589 

106 S. 6th Ave. 

Yakima, WA 98902-3387 

P.O. Box 43155 

Olympia, WA 98504 

Airdustrial Center, Bldg. 4 

P.O. Box 47825 

Olympia, WA 98504 

P.O. Box 47031 

Olympia, WA 98504-7031 

2802 Fruitvale Blvd. 

Yakima, WA 98902 

503-326-3736 

509-662-4335 

509-454-5736 

800-622-4519 

509-865-2255 

208-378-5020 

206-753-9440 

206-593-6510 

206-553-8514 

509-865-5121 

206-753-5064 

509-454-7658 

206-753-6650 

206-753-1930 

206-753-5338 

509-575-2740 

Much appreciation is extended to US. Geological Survey employees for their expertise in the production of illustrations 

by Leslie J. Robinson and James 0 Whitmer; type composition by Shirlie A. McManus; and photography by David F. Usher. 

Appreciation is also extended to those individuals and agencies that contributed photographs: 

Charlie Collins, U.S. Geological Survey 

Lynn Hatcher, Yakima Indian Nation, 

Fisheries Program 

Gregory K. Scott, Nature Photos, 

Gilman, Wisconsin 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Central Washington Agricultural Museum 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Yakima Valley Museum and Historical Society 

23 
24 A COORDINATED EFFORT 

LOCAL AND INTERSTATE AGENCIES, UNNERSITIES, AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 

Benton Conservation District 

Benton-Franklin Health District 

Central Washington University 

Columbia River Intertribal Fish 

Commission 

Kittitas County Conservation District 

Kittitas County Health Department 

Northwest Power Planning Council 

North Yakima Conservation District 

South Yakima Conservation District 

Washington State University at Prosser 

Irrigated Agricultural Research and 

Extension Center 

Washington State University Cooperative Extension 

Benton County 

Kittitas County 

Yakima County 

Washington Water Research Center 

Washington State University 

Yakima Health District 

Yakima River Basin Association 

of Irrigation Districts 

Yakima Valley Conference of 

Governments 

618 8th St. 

Prosser, WA 99350 

800 W. Canal Dr. 

Kennewick, WA 99336 

Chemistry Dept., Dean Hall 

Ellensburg, WA 98926 

129 NE. Oregon, Suite 200 

Portland, OR fJ7232 

P.O. Box 679 

Ellensburg, WA 98926 

5(Jl N. Naneum 

Ellensburg, WA 98926 

851 6th Ave. SW. , Suite 1100 

Portland, OR fJ7204 

1606 Perry St. , Suite F 

Yakima, WA 98902 

P.O. Box 230 

Toppenish, WA 98948 

Box 2953A 

Prosser, WA 99350 

1121 Dudley Ave. 

Prosser, WA 99350-1399 

5th and Main, Room 217 

Ellensburg, WA 98926-2887 

233 Courthouse 

Yakima, WA 98901 

Pullman, WA 99164 

104 N. 1st St. 

Yakima, WA 98901 

P.O. Box 810 

Sunnyside, WA 98944 

6 S. 2nd St. , Suite 605 

Yakima, WA 98901 

509-786-1923 

509-582-7761 

509-963-2811 

503-238-0667 

509-925-5375 

509-962-7515 

503-222-5161 

509-454-5736 

509-865-4012 

509-786-2226 

509-786-5609 

509-962-75(J7 

509-575-4242 

509-335-5531 

509-575-4265 

509-837-5141 

509-575-4372 

Additional information on the National Water-Quality Assessment Program can be obtained by writing to: 

Deputy Assistant Chief Hydrologist, NAWQA Program 

U.S. Geological Survey 

National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 413 

Reston, Virginia 22092 

Suggested Readings: 

Hopkins, B.S., Clark, D.K., Schlender, M., and Stinson, M., 1985, Basic water monitoring program, fish tissue and sediment sampling for 1984: Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Investigations Section, Report 85-7, 43 p. 

Johnson, Arthur, Norton, Dale, and Yake, William, 1986, Occurrence and significance of DDT compounds and other contaminants in fish, water, and sediment 

from the Yakima River Basin: Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Investigations Section, Report 86-5, 89 p. 

Richards, R.P. and Baker, D.B., 1990, Estimates of human exposure to pesticides through drinking water-A preliminary risk assessment in Kurtz, D.A., 

ed., Long range transport of pesticides: Lewis Publishers, p. 387-403. 

Rinella, J.F., McKenzie, S.W., Crawford, J.K., Foreman, W.T., Gates, P.M., Fuhrer, G.J., and Janet, M.L., 1992, Surface-water-quality assessment of the 

Yakima River Basin, Washington: Pesticide and other trace-organic-compound data for water, sediment, soil, and aquatic biota, 1987-91: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 92-644, 154 p. 

Rinella, J.F., McKenzie, S.W., and Fuhrer, G.J., 1991, Surface-water-quality assessment of the Yakima River Basin, Washington-Analysis of available waterquality data through 1985 water year: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-453, 270 p. 

Schmitt, C.J., Zajicek, J. L., and Peterman, P.H., 1990, National contaminant biomonitoring program-Residues of organochlorine chemicals in U.S. freshwater 

fish, 1976-84: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 19, p. 748-781. 

Smith, J.A., Witkowski, P.J., and Fusillo, T.V., 1988, Manmade organic compounds in the surface waters of the United States-A review of current understanding: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1007, 92 p. 

Woodwell, G. M., 1984, Broken eggshells: Science, v. 5, p. 115-117.