1

Columbia River Basin: 

State of the River Report for Toxics 

January 2009 

EPA 910-R-08-004 | January 2009 

www.epa.gov/region10/columbia 

United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Region 10 
2

Cover Photographs Provided By (Top to Bottom, Left to Right): Ed Deery (top row, 1st in 2nd row), Brent Foster (2nd through 4th in 2nd row), Paige Rouse (1st in 3rd row), Lower 

Columbia River Estuary Partnership (2nd in 3rd row, 2nd in bottom row), Darwin Durek (1st in bottom row), and Laura Gephart (3rd in bottom row) . 
 

 

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

Table of Contents
 

1.0 Executive Summary ...............................................................1
 

2.0 Introduction ............................................................................3
 

A National Priority 

The Story of Contamination in the Columbia River Basin 

The Origin and Purpose of the Columbia River Toxics Reduction 

Working Group 

3.0 Toxic Contaminants..................................................................6
 

What are Toxic Contaminants?
 

Why are Persistent Toxics a Concern?
 

What are the Contaminants of Concern in the Columbia River 

Basin?
 

Which Contaminants are Found in People?
 

What are Emerging Contaminants of Concern?
 

Fish Consumption Advisories for Toxics are Widespread across 

the Basin
 

4.0 Indicators................................................................................11
 

What are Indicators?
 

Which Indicator Species are Used in this Report?
 

Why were These Species Selected as Indicators for the 

Columbia River Basin?
 

Juvenile salmon 

Resident fish 

Sturgeon 

Predatory birds—osprey and bald eagle in the Lower 

Columbia River 

Aquatic mammals—mink and river otter 

Sediment-dwelling shellfish—Asian clam 

5.0 Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs .....15 

Mercury: Most Fish Consumption Advisories in the Basin are due 

to High Concentrations of Mercury 

Several pathways introduce mercury into the Columbia River 

Basin 

Regional trends and spatial patterns of mercury levels in the 

Basin can be difficult to evaluate 

DDT: Banned in 1972, This Pesticide Still Poses a Threat to the 

Environment 

Soil erosion from agricultural runoff is the main source of DDT 

into the Basin 

DDT levels are declining with better soil conservation 

practices, but DDT still exceeds human health levels of 

concern 

PCBs: Stable PCB Compounds Continue to Persist in the 

Environment 

PCBs enter the ecosystem from multiple sources and through 

multiple pathways 

PCBs in fish are declining but still exceed EPA human and 

ecological health concern levels in some areas 

PBDEs: Concern over Flame Retardants is Growing 

PBDEs are in many everyday products 

Information on how PBDEs enter the environment is limited 

Levels of PBDEs in the Columbia River are increasing 

Summary of Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and 

PBDEs 

i
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

Table of Contents (contd)	 acronyms
 

6.0	 Toxics Reduction Efforts—Current and Planned..................30 

States are Improving Water Quality and Reducing Toxics 

State agencies are developing water quality improvement 

plans 

Oregon is using human health criteria to limit toxics 

EPA and States are Using Permits to Control Toxics 

Federal Government and States are Working to Clean up 

Hazardous Waste in the Basin 

State and Local Partnerships are Working to Improve Farming 

Practices 

Partnerships and volunteer efforts are reducing runoff from 

farms 

Washington is working to control soil erosion and reduce 

pesticide runoff in the Yakima River Basin 

Oregon is working with farmers to reduce pesticide runoff 

State and Local Governments are Removing Toxics from 

Communities 

Oregon and Nevada are Reducing Industrial Mercury Emissions 

Idaho Agencies and Kootenai Tribe are Monitoring Toxics in Fish, 

Water, and Air
 

PCBs and Hydroelectric Facilities
 

7.0	 Conclusions ...........................................................................39
 

8.0	 Toxics Reduction Initiatives...................................................40
 

9.0	 A Path Forward.......................................................................42
 

10.0	 References .............................................................................43
 

BMP 

BPA 

CRITFC 

DDD 

DDE 

DDT 

DOE 

EPA 

IDEQ 

LCREP 

NOAA 

NPCC 

NPDES 

ODEQ 

OSU 

PAH 

PBDEs 

PBT 

PCBs 

PNNL

ppb 

ppm 

ppt 

PSP 

TMDL 

TRI 

UC 

U.S. 

USACE 

USDOE 

USEPA 

USFWS 

USGS 

WADOE 

WADOH 

WDFW 

best management practice 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

dichlorophenyldichloroethane 

dichlorophenyldichloroethylene 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Oregon State University 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic contaminant 

polychlorinated biphenyls 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

parts per billion 

parts per million 

parts per trillion 

Pesticide Stewardship Partnership 

total maximum daily load 

Toxics Release Inventory 

University of California 

United States 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

see DOE 

see EPA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Washington Department of Ecology 

Washington Department of Health 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

ii
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

acknowledgments
 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is indebted to many people 

for their help in developing this Columbia River Basin: State of the River 

Report for Toxics. This has been a team effort from the beginning. 

Steering Committee: Mike Cox (EPA), Lead; Jay Davis (USFWS), Bruce 

Duncan (EPA), Don Essig (IDEQ), Greg Fuhrer (USGS), Lyndal Johnson 

(NOAA), Krista Jones (LCREP), Andrew Kolosseus (WADOE), Jill Leary 

(formerly with LCREP), Agnes Lut (ODEQ), Dave McBride (WADOH), Jim 

Ruff (NPCC), Mary Lou Soscia (EPA), and James Thomas (The Confederated 

Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation) 

Contaminant Subgroup: Jill Leary (formerly with LCREP) and Lorraine 

Edmond (EPA), Leads; Greg Fuhrer (USGS), Larry Gadbois (EPA), Lyndal 

Johnson (NOAA), Andrew Kolosseus (WADOE), Agnes Lut (ODEQ), 

Jennifer Morace (USGS), Elena Nilsen (USGS), Rachael Pecore (Columbia 

Riverkeeper), and Helen Rueda (EPA) 

Sources Subgroup: Lorraine Edmond (EPA), Lead; Linda Bingler (PNNL), 

Brent Foster (Columbia Riverkeeper), Nancy Kohn (PNNL), Andrew 

Kolosseus (WADOE), Joanne LaBaw (EPA), Kevin Masterson (ODEQ), 

Sondra Miller (Boise State), Jennifer Morace (USGS), Elena Nilsen (USGS), 

and Helen Rueda (EPA) 

Effects Subgroup: Tracie Nadeau (EPA), Lead; Liz Carr (WADOH), Jay Davis 

(USFWS), Lyndal Johnson (NOAA), Dave McBride (WADOH), and Rachael 

Pecore (Columbia Riverkeeper) 

Participants in September 2007 “Indicators Workshop” not listed under 

other groups: Tracie Nadeau (EPA), Lead; Claudio Bravo (NOAA), Mark 

Curran (Battelle), Patti Howard (formerly with CRITFC), Sandie O’Neil 

(WDFW), and Jim West (WDFW) 

Data Subgroup: Helen Rueda (EPA), Lead; Chad Brown (WADOE), Curtis 

Cude (formerly with ODEQ), Bruce Duncan (EPA), Lorraine Edmond (EPA), 

Jay Field (NOAA), Matt Gubitosa (EPA), Jill Leary (formerly with LCREP), 

Agnes Lut (ODEQ), Jennifer Morace (USGS), Chris Neumiller (WADOE), 

John Piccininni (BPA), John Sands (DOE), and James Thomas (The 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation) 

Additional Contributors: Jeremy Buck (USFWS), Brad Carter (EPA), 

Tracy Collier (NOAA), Don Essig (IDEQ), Marty Fitzpatrick (USGS), Gene 

Foster (ODEQ), Robert Grove (USGS), Chuck Henny (USGS), Art Johnson 

(WADOE), Kim Johnson (EPA), Jim Kaiser (USGS), Gretchen Kruse (Free 

Run Aquatic Research), Lynn McLeod, Gar Dingess (Battelle), Dale Norton 

(WADOE), Desiree Padgett (Battelle), Mark Siipola (USACE), Suzanne 

Skadowski (EPA), Ann Williamson (EPA), and Jennifer Wu (EPA) 

iii
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

iv

The Columbia River Basin 
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

1.0 

executive summary 

The Columbia River Basin, one of the world’s great river basins, is 

contaminated with many toxic contaminants, some of which are moving 

through the food web. These toxics in the air, water, and soil threaten the health 

of people, fish, and wildlife inhabiting the Basin.

In this report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, 

summarizes what we currently know about four main contaminants in the 

Basin and the risks they pose to people, fish, and wildlife. We also identify

major gaps in current information that we must fill to understand and reduce

these contaminants. Current information in the Basin indicates that toxics are a 

health concern for people, fish, and wildlife, but this information is sparse. In

many locations, toxics have not been monitored at all. We do not have enough 

information in the majority of the Basin to know whether contaminant levels 

are increasing or decreasing over time. We need to fill these information gaps

to understand the impacts on the ecosystem and to plan and prioritize toxics 

reduction actions. 

This report focuses primarily on the following four contaminants: mercury, 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its breakdown products, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) 

flame retardants. We focus on these contaminants because they are found

throughout the Basin at levels that could adversely impact people, fish, and

wildlife. Many other contaminants are found in the Basin, including arsenic, 

dioxins, radionuclides, lead, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and “emerging 

contaminants” such as pharmaceuticals found in wastewater. This report does 

not focus on those contaminants, in part because there is a lack of widespread 

information on their presence in the Basin. 

Mercury contaminates the Basin from industrial and energy-related activities 

occurring within and outside of the Basin. Mercury poses a special challenge 

because much of the Basin’s mercury pollution comes from sources outside 

of the Basin via atmospheric deposition. At a watershed scale, however, local 

and regional sources can be significant contributors of mercury to the Basin.

Fish consumption advisories for mercury continue to be issued in every state 

throughout the Basin. 

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

1.0 ExECuTIvE SuMMARy 

The pesticide DDT and industrial chemicals known as PCBs have been 

banned since the 1970s, and reduction efforts have lowered their levels in the 

environment. Unfortunately, these chemicals persist in the environment and 

continue to pollute the Basin’s waterbodies from various sources, including 

stormwater and agricultural land runoff and hazardous waste releases. In many 

areas, DDT and PCB concentrations still exceed levels of concern, and fish

consumption advisories for these contaminants continue to be issued in every 

state throughout the Basin. 

PBDE flame retardants and other emerging contaminants of concern—such as

pharmaceuticals and personal care products—are a growing concern because

their levels are increasing in fish and wildlife throughout the Basin. We are just

beginning to conduct the research needed to better understand the impacts to 

the ecosystem from emerging contaminants. 

This report provides preliminary information on the presence of mercury, 

DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs in the following species: juvenile salmon; resident 

fish (sucker, bass, and mountain whitefish); sturgeon; predatory birds (osprey

and bald eagles); aquatic mammals (mink and otter); and sediment-dwelling 

shellfish (Asian clams). These species can help us understand trends in the

levels of toxics in the Basin and judge the effectiveness of toxics reduction 

efforts. 

Some initial steps to address the problem of toxics have already been taken. 

In 2005, EPA joined other federal, state, tribal, local, and nonprofit partners to

form the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group to better coordinate 

toxics reduction work and share information. The goal of the Working 

Group is to reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin and prevent further 

contamination. This State of the River Report for Toxics was identified as a

priority by this multi-stakeholder group and was prepared under the leadership 

of EPA Region 10 with the support and guidance of the Working Group. 

Meanwhile, there are many ongoing efforts to reduce toxics in the Basin. 

Some examples include erosion control efforts in the Yakima Basin; Pesticide 

Stewardship Partnerships in the Hood River and Walla Walla Basins; PCB 

cleanup at Bonneville Dam; legacy pesticide collection throughout the Basin; 

1
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

1.0 ExECuTIvE SuMMARy 

and investigation and cleanup of the Portland Harbor, Hanford, and Upper 

Columbia/Lake Roosevelt contamination sites. These and other combined 

efforts have reduced toxics over the years, but we still need to further reduce 

toxics to make the Basin a healthier place for people, fish, and wildlife.

To ensure a more coordinated strategy, EPA and our Working Group partners 

developed a set of six broad Toxics Reduction Initiatives needed to reduce 

toxics in the Basin. Over the next year, the Working Group will develop a 

detailed work plan to provide a roadmap for future reduction efforts with input 

from Basin citizens; local watershed councils; Basin communities and other 

entities; and tribal, federal, and state governments. 

Reducing toxics in the Basin will require a comprehensive, coordinated effort 

by all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the public. 

The problems are too large, widespread, and complex to be solved by only one 

organization. Our hope is that this report and the subsequent toxics reduction 

work plan will help us make this ecosystem healthier for all who live, work, 

and play in the Basin. 

2
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

2.0 

introduction 

The Columbia River Basin is one of the world’s great river basins in terms 

of its land area and river volume, as well as its environmental and cultural 

significance. However, public and scientific concern about the health of the

Basin ecosystem is increasing, especially with regard to adverse impacts on the 

Basin associated with the presence of toxic contaminants. A full understanding 

of the toxics problem is essential because the health of the Basin’s ecosystem is 

critical to the approximately 8 million people who inhabit the Basin and depend 

on its resources for their health and livelihood. [1] The health of the ecosystem 

is also critical to the survival of the hundreds of fish and wildlife species that

inhabit the Basin. In this State of the River Report for Toxics, we make our first

attempt to describe the risks to the Basin’s human and animal communities 

from toxics and to set forth current and future efforts needed to reduce toxics. 

The Basin drains about 259,000 square miles across seven U.S. states and 

British Columbia, Canada. Of that total, about 219,400 square miles, or 

85 percent of the Pacific Northwest region, are in the United States; the

remaining 39,500 square miles are in Canada. [2] The Basin’s rivers and 

streams carry the fourth largest volume of runoff in North America. The 

Columbia River begins at Columbia Lake in the Canadian Rockies and 

travels 1,243 miles over 14 dams to reach the Pacific Ocean a hundred miles

downstream from Portland, Oregon. The River’s final 300 miles, including

the dramatic Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area, form the border between 

Washington and Oregon. In this report, the Lower Columbia River is 

considered to be the reach from Bonneville Dam downstream to the Pacific

Ocean, the Middle Columbia River is considered to be the reach from 

Bonneville Dam upstream to Grand Coulee Dam, and the Upper Columbia 

River is considered to be the reach above Grand Coulee Dam. 

Major tributaries to the Columbia River include the Snake, Willamette, 

Spokane, Deschutes, Yakima, Wenatchee, John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, 

Pend Oreille/Clark Fork, Okanogan, Kettle, Methow, Kootenai, Flathead, 

Grande Ronde, Lewis, Cowlitz, Salmon, Clearwater, Owyhee, and Klickitat 

Rivers. The Snake River is the largest tributary to the Columbia River, with 

a drainage area of 108,500 square miles, or 49 percent of the U.S. portion of 

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

2.0 INTRODuCTION 

the watershed. Another major tributary is the Willamette River, which drains 

11,200 square miles and is located entirely within the State of Oregon. [2] 

The Basin’s salmon and steelhead runs were once the largest runs in the world, 

with an estimated peak of between 10 million and 16 million fish returning to

the Basin annually to about 1 million upriver adult salmon passing Bonneville 

Dam in recent years. [3] For thousands of years, the tribal people of the Basin 

have depended on these salmon runs and other native fish for physical,

spiritual, and cultural sustenance. Bald eagles, osprey, bears, and many other 

animals also rely on fish from the Columbia River and its tributaries to survive

and feed their young. Historically, the large annual returns of adult salmon and 

steelhead have contributed important marine nutrients to the ecosystems of the 

interior Columbia River Basin. The Basin is also economically vital to many 

Pacific Northwest industries such as sport and commercial fishing, agriculture,

transportation, recreation, and tourism. Throughout history, and up to the 

present day, the Basin has supported settlement and development, agriculture, 

transportation, and recreation. 

There are more than 370 major dams on tributaries of the Columbia River 

Basin. [4] With its many major federal and nonfederal hydropower dams, 

the River is one of the most intensive hydroelectric developments in the 

world. About 65 percent (approximately 33,000 megawatts) of the Pacific

Northwest’s generating capacity comes from hydroelectric dams. Under 

normal precipitation, the dams produce about three-quarters (16,200 average 

megawatts) of the region’s electricity. Some of the other major uses of the 

multi-purpose dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers include flood control,

commercial navigation, irrigation, and recreation. [3] 

A National Priority 

In 2006, EPA designated the Columbia River Basin as a Critical Large Aquatic 

Ecosystem in our 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. [5] The Plan’s Goal 4, Healthy 

Communities and Ecosystems, is “to protect, sustain, or restore the health of 

people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive 

approaches and partnerships.” 

3
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

2.0 INTRODuCTION 

The Columbia River Basin goal states: 

“By 2011, prevent water pollution and improve and protect water 

quality and ecosystems in the Columbia River Basin to reduce risks to 

human health and the environment.” 

The focus of the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan was achieving more measurable 

environmental results. Working with state, tribal, and local partners, we 

selected the following strategic targets for the Columbia River Basin: 

	 By 2011, protect, enhance, or restore 13,000 acres of wetland habitat and 

3,000 acres of upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed. 

	 By 2011, clean up 150 acres of known highly contaminated sediments in the 

Lower Columbia River Basin, including Portland Harbor. 

	 By 2011, demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of 

contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue. Contaminants of

concern include chlorpyrifos and azinphos methyl in the Little Walla Walla 

River, DDT in the Walla Walla and Yakima Rivers, and DDT and PCBs in 

the mainstem. 

We selected these targets because historical data were available and each 

represented measurable outcomes for reduction of toxics in the Basin. Meeting 

these targets and the overarching goal depends on the states, tribes, local 

governments, federal government, and nongovernmental agencies working 

together to improve the health of the Columbia River Basin. 

The Story of Contamination in the Columbia River Basin 

Fish, wildlife, and people are exposed to many contaminants polluting the 

water and sediment of the Columbia River Basin. These contaminants come 

from current and past industrial discharges (point sources) to the air, land, 

and water and from more widespread sources such as runoff from farms and 

roads (nonpoint sources) and atmospheric deposition. Some contaminants, 

such as mercury, also come from natural sources. Even when released in small 

amounts, some of these contaminants can build up over time to toxic levels in 

plants and animals. 

In 1992, an EPA national survey of contaminants in fish in the United

States alerted EPA and others to a potential health threat to tribal and other 

people who eat fish from the Columbia River Basin. [6] The Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) and its four member tribes—the

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes 

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Nez Perce Tribe—were concerned for

their tribal members who consume fish.

To evaluate the likelihood that tribal people may be exposed to high levels of 

contaminants in fish, EPA funded the CRITFC tribes to conduct a Columbia

River Basin tribal fish consumption survey, which was then followed by an

EPA and tribal study of contaminant levels in fish caught at traditional tribal

fishing sites. [7,8] The consumption survey showed that the tribal members were 

Human activities have contributed many toxic contaminants to the 

Columbia River Basin over the last 150 years: 

 Dioxins, PCBs, metals, and other toxic chemicals were spilled and 

dumped in Portland Harbor. The sources: boat-building, steel-milling, 

and sewer discharges. 

 “Legacy pollutants”—chemicals banned in the 1970s such as PCBs

and chlorinated pesticides such as DDT—still contaminate the river.

The sources: farmland, roads, construction sites, and stormwater 

runoff. 

 Newer chemicals, including modern pesticides, flame retardants such

as PBDEs, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, contaminate 

the river. The sources: runoff and sewers. 

 Metals wash into Lake Roosevelt. The sources: metal smelters in 

Washington and British Columbia. 

 Metals wash into the Spokane River. The source: mines in northern 

Idaho. 

4
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

2.0 INTRODuCTION 

eating six to eleven times more fish than EPA’s estimated national average at

that time of 6.5 grams per day. The fish contaminant study showed the presence

of 92 contaminants in fish consumed by CRITFC tribal members and other

people in the Columbia River Basin. Some of these contaminant levels were 

above the levels of concerns for aquatic life or human health. [8] Contaminants 

measured in Columbia River fish included PCBs, dioxins, furans, arsenic,

mercury, and DDE, a toxic breakdown product of the pesticide DDT. 

The Origin and Purpose of the Columbia River Toxics 

Reduction Working Group 

Over the past two decades, much information was collected on the levels of 

contaminants in water, sediment, and fish in the Columbia River Basin. The

result was an accumulation of scattered data that needed to be compiled into a 

Basin-wide report of the potential impacts from contaminants to people, fish,

and wildlife. In 2005, EPA joined other federal, state, tribal, local, and nonprofit partners to form the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group to

better coordinate this work and share information. Our goal is to reduce toxics 

in the Basin and prevent further contamination. This goal includes reducing 

toxics in the plants and animals that people eat and ensuring the survival, 

reproduction, and growth of fish and wildlife in the Basin.

One of the first actions this multi-stakeholder group identified was the

development of a report for the Columbia River Basin describing the state of 

the River. The Working Group recognized toxics as one of several important 

factors affecting the health of the Basin’s people, plants, and animals. We also 

recognized that toxics had received less attention than other factors and that 

a report on the influence of toxics was a good first step in understanding the

health of the Basin’s ecosystem. 

This State of the River Report for Toxics was prepared under the leadership 

of EPA Region 10 with the support and guidance of the Working Group. This 

report sets in motion the process by which we will address the following 

questions: 

	 Which toxics are we most concerned about in the Columbia River Basin, 

and why? Which toxics are the highest priority for cleanup? 

	 Where are the toxics coming from? How can they be controlled and cleaned 

up? How can we prevent contamination in the future? 

	 What can indicator species tell us about the health of the Columbia River 

Basin? What indicator species should we use to evaluate the health of the 

ecosystem? Is the health of the ecosystem improving or declining? What 

additional information do we need to collect so that we can determine 

changes over time to better understand and deal with the toxics problem? 

	 What toxics reduction actions are currently under way? Have they been 

successful? What actions are planned to further reduce toxics? 

	 What are the next steps to improve the health of the Columbia River Basin 

ecosystem? What are the short- and long-term monitoring and research 

needs? 

This report will be used to inform people, communities, and decision-makers in 

the Basin about the toxics problem and to begin a dialogue to identify potential 

solutions for improving the Basin’s health. 

in addition to this report, epa’s Columbia River basin website (http://www.epa.gov/region10/columbia) will vISIT THE WEB provide more detailed and up-to-date information on the health of the Columbia River basin as work continues. 

5
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

3.0 TOxIC CONTAMINANTS 

3.0 

Toxic Contaminants 

What are Toxic Contaminants? 

Toxic contaminants (or toxics) are chemicals introduced to the environment 

in amounts that can be harmful to fish, wildlife, or people. Some are naturally

occurring, but many of these contaminants were manufactured for use in 

industry, agriculture, or for personal uses such as hygiene and medical care. 

These synthetic and naturally occurring chemicals can be concentrated to toxic 

levels and transported to streams through a combination of human activities 

such as mining or wastewater treatment and through natural processes such as 

erosion (Figure 3.1). 

The fate of a contaminant is determined by its properties—for example,

whether the contaminant mixes readily with water or sediment particles, 

or whether it changes form when exposed to sunlight, bacteria, or heat. A 

contaminant’s location and level of concentration in a river help determine 

whether fish, wildlife, and people are exposed to it and, if so, whether they

experience harmful health effects. 

Why are Persistent Toxics a Concern? 

Chemicals with well-known effects are generally those chemicals that remain 

in the environment for a long time (persistent contaminants), contaminate 

food sources, and increase in concentration in fish and birds. Animals can take

in these contaminants directly while foraging for food or drinking water, or 

they can eat other animals and plants that have absorbed the contaminants. 

Many contaminants break down slowly, so they accumulate and concentrate 

in plants, wildlife, and people. The concentration of persistent contaminants 

through water, sediment, and food sources and within a plant or animal is called 

bioaccumulation. An example of a persistent chemical in the Columbia River 

is DDT and its breakdown product DDE, both of which are still present in the 

River nearly 40 years after DDT was banned. 

Contaminants in water and sediment are absorbed by microscopic plants and 

animals, called phytoplankton and zooplankton, as they take in food and water. 

Many of these chemicals are not easily metabolized, so they persist in living 

organisms and concentrations build up in their tissues. Plankton, which are 

Figure 3.1: Toxic Contaminant Pathways in the Environment 

at the bottom of the food web, carry the toxic burden all their lives. As larger 

animals eat the plankton, the accumulated chemicals are absorbed into each 

animal’s body. Fish and other animals eat the plants, microorganisms, and 

small fish; the chemical moves into their bodies, and ultimately into larger fish6
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

3.0 TOxIC CONTAMINANTS 

eating birds and mammals higher in the food web. This is how contaminant 

concentrations exponentially increase in fish and fish-eating animals at levels

much higher than the concentrations found in the waters the fish live in.

Through this biomagnification process, top predators, including birds of prey 

and humans, can accumulate contaminants in higher concentrations than those 

found in the plants and animals they consume (Figure 3.2). This toxic load 

builds up in their bodies throughout their lives. 

What are the Contaminants of Concern in the 

Columbia River Basin? 

While many contaminants have the potential to be of concern, this report 

focuses primarily on four contaminants: mercury (including methylmercury); 

DDT and its breakdown products; PCBs; and PBDEs. 

These contaminants are of primary concern because (1) they are widely 

distributed throughout the Basin; (2) they may have adverse effects on wildlife, 

fish, and people; (3) they are found at levels of concern in many locations

throughout the Basin; and (4) there is an opportunity to build on current efforts 

to reduce these contaminants within the Basin. [1] 

In addition to these four contaminants, many other contaminants of concern 

were also identified in the Basin. These included metals such as arsenic

and lead; radionuclides; several types of pesticides, including current-use 

pesticides; industrial chemicals; combustion byproducts such as dioxin; and 

“emerging contaminants” such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products. 

These contaminants are not the focus of this report, either because there is a 

lack of widespread information on their presence in the Basin or because they 

are best suited to more geographically targeted studies within the Basin. 

Figure 3.2: Persistent contaminants biomagnify, 

increasing in concentration up the food web. The 

highest biomagnification levels can be found in the 

eggs of fish-eating birds. 

vISIT THE WEB for more information on biomagnification, go to: http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/biomagnification.html. 

7
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

3.0 TOxIC CONTAMINANTS

Which Contaminants are Found in People? 

Two studies recently investigated the amount and type of toxic contaminants 

found in people. In 2005, ten Washington residents volunteered to have their 

hair, blood, and urine tested for the presence of toxics as part of the “Pollution 

in People” investigative study by the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition. [2] Each 

person tested positive for at least 26, and as many as 39, of the 66 toxics 

tested for, including common pesticides; plasticizers and fragrances found in 

vinyl, toys, and personal care products; flame retardants found in electronics,

mattresses, and furniture; lead, mercury, and arsenic; and both DDT and PCBs. 

In 2007, ten Oregon residents representing a diverse group of people from rural 

and urban areas throughout the state volunteered to have their bodies tested in a 

study of chemicals in people conducted by the Oregon Environmental Council 

and the Oregon Collaborative for Health and the Environment. [3] Each person 

had at least 9, and as many as 16, of the 29 toxics tested for in their bodies. 

Similar to the Washington study, these toxics included pesticides, mercury, 

plasticizers, and PCBs. Every participant had mercury, PCBs, and plasticizers 

in their blood. 

While some of these toxics found in people may come from consuming fish or

wildlife in the Columbia River Basin, the majority of the toxics found in people 

come from everyday activities and products such as food, cosmetics, home 

electronics, plastic products, and furniture. A greater effort to reduce toxics in 

the products we produce and consume will be needed to limit human exposure 

and intake of toxics and to reduce the amount of toxics that we put into the 

ecosystem. 

for more information on the “pollution in 

people” studies, visit the Toxic-free 

legacy Coalition: http://www. vISIT THE WEB 

toxicfreelegacy.org/index.html and the oregon 

environmental Council: http://www.oeconline. 

org/pollutioninpeople. 

What about Hanford and radionuclides? 

For more than 40 years, the U.S. government produced plutonium for 

nuclear weapons at the Hanford Site along the Columbia River. Production 

began in 1944 as part of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort 

to build an atomic bomb. Plutonium production ended and cleanup 

began at Hanford in 1989. Over 600 waste sites have been identified in

the immediate vicinity of the nuclear reactors. These waste sites have 

contaminated the groundwater with radionuclides (nuclear waste) and 

toxic chemicals, above drinking water standards. In certain areas, the 

contaminated groundwater has reached the Columbia River. 

The waste sites and facilities near the River are undergoing an intensive 

investigation and cleanup effort. One part of that investigation will 

evaluate the risk to humans and other organisms in the Columbia River 

ecosystem from Hanford contaminants, including radionuclides, heavy 

metals, and some organic chemicals. The risk assessment results will be 

available in 2011. [5] Because of the ongoing investigation and cleanup 

efforts, this State of the River Report for Toxics does not focus on effects 

on the river from Hanford. 

for more information about the hanford 

cleanup, go to: vISIT THE WEB http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/Cleanup.nsf/ 

sites/hanford and www.hanford.gov. 

8
 

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

3.0 TOxIC CONTAMINANTS 

What are Emerging Contaminants of Concern? 

A growing number of substances that we use every day, including 

pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and personal care products, are turning up in our 

lakes and rivers, including the Columbia River. [4] These “emerging chemical 

contaminants” often occur at very low levels. With improved detection 

technologies, we are becoming more 

aware of their widespread distribution 

in the environment, and concerns 

are increasing about their potential 

impacts on fish and shellfish, wildlife,

and human health. Hormones, 

antibiotics, and other drugs, which 

are commonly found in animal and 

human waste sources, are examples 

of emerging contaminants. Currentuse pesticides and perfluorinated

compounds—chemicals used in

consumer products to make them 

stain- and stick-resistant—are other

examples of emerging contaminants. 

Although several of these emerging 

contaminants have been detected in water and sediment in the Lower Columbia 

River, information from locations elsewhere in the Basin is extremely limited. 

In response to these newly recognized contaminants, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) is sponsoring a four-year study in the Lower Columbia River 

addressing the movement of emerging contaminants from water to sediment, 

and through the food web to fish-eating birds, to evaluate the threat to the

environment and human health. 

Emerging chemical contaminants include 

pharmaceuticals and other products that are 

not properly disposed. These contaminants 

are increasingly accumulating in waterways, 

including the Columbia River. 

Dioxins: A success story in toxics reductions 

A 1987 EPA study showed unsafe levels of dioxin in fish from the Columbia

River [6] Dioxins are persistent bioaccumulative toxins that can cause 

developmental and reproductive problems and potentially increase the risk 

of cancer. Dioxins are a byproduct of combustion and manufacturing 

processes, including bleaching paper pulp with chlorine. 

In response to the study, in 1991 EPA collaborated with Oregon and 

Washington to require reductions in the amount of dioxin discharged by 

13 paper mills to the Columbia, Snake, and Willamette Rivers. These 

pulp and paper mills subsequently changed their bleaching process, 

which reduced releases of dioxins into the Columbia River Basin. 

Since 1991, dioxin concentrations in resident fish in the Columbia

have decreased dramatically (Figure 3.3). [7,8,9,10,11,12] The dioxin content 

of osprey eggs has also shown a significant reduction in the lower

part of the river. [13] However, dioxin is extremely persistent, and fish

consumption advisories are still in place for some locations in the Basin. 

Figure 3.3: Dioxin levels in Columbia River fish have decreased significantly 

since pulp and paper mills changed their bleaching process, which reduced 

dioxin discharges in the early 1990s. 

vISIT THE WEB for more information about dioxins in the Columbia River basin, go to: www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TmDls/columbia.htm 

and www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97342.html. 9
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

3.0 TOxIC CONTAMINANTS

Fish Consumption Advisories for Toxics are Widespread 

across the Basin 

When a river or lake becomes contaminated, it is not only an ecological loss 

but also a significant resource loss for people who depend on those fish for their

diet. Fish consumption advisories are issued for lakes and rivers where various 

levels of fish consumption are no longer safe due to toxics in fish.

State health departments have issued public fish consumption advisories about

the types and amounts of fish that are safe to eat from specific waters, including

waters of the Columbia River Basin (Figure 3.4). In Washington, Oregon, 

Idaho, and Montana, people are advised to limit meals of fish such as bass,

trout, walleye, and bottom fish from certain streams and lakes due to concerns

about high levels of mercury, PCBs, and other contaminants. Because testing 

has shown high mercury concentrations in certain species, and because there 

is a lack of data from many water bodies, Washington has issued a statewide 

mercury advisory for consumption of bass and Idaho has issued a statewide 

mercury advisory for bass and walleye. 

Figure 3.4: State-issued fish consumption advisories are in effect throughout the Columbia 

River Basin for certain contaminants and species. Not all waters have been tested, so the 

absence of an advisory does not necessarily mean it is safe to consume unlimited quantities 

of fish from untested waters. 

find information about fish consumption advisories for Washington: 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/fish/ vISIT THE WEB oregon: www.oregon.gov/Dhs/ph/envtox/fishconsumption.html 

idaho: www.idahohealth.org and montana: www.dphhs.mt.gov/fish2005.pdf. 

10
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

4.0 

indicators 

What are Indicators? 

Environmental indicators are tools used to help citizens and decision-makers 

better understand the health of the environment and whether we are reaching 

our environmental goals. Indicators may be specific organisms, specific media

such as water or sediment, or a specific sampling location or contaminant. The

indicators used in this report are animal species living in the Columbia River 

Basin or dependent on food from the River. Studying these species over time 

will help scientists track changes in the Basin’s ecosystem. 

Which Indicator Species are used in this Report? 

For this report, the following indicator species were selected to help assess the 

health of the Basin ecosystem: juvenile salmon; resident fish, both native and

introduced (e.g., sucker, bass, and mountain whitefish); sturgeon; predatory

birds (osprey and bald eagle); aquatic mammals (mink and otter), and 

sediment-dwelling shellfish (Asian clam).

Why were These Species Selected as Indicators for the 

Columbia River Basin? 

The indicator species listed above were chosen for this report because they 

have some or most of the following characteristics: 

	 The species has a clear connection with important aspects of the Basin’s 

ecosystem. 

	 Information is available to describe contaminant status and/or trend 

information for the species. 

	 The species can be used to track progress on toxics reduction activities. 

	 The species represents an important functional level (e.g. predator, prey) of 

the Basin’s food web. 

	 The species may be compared with the same species living in other aquatic 

ecosystems. 

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

4.0 INDICATORS

Juvenile salmon 

There are five species of salmon in the Basin: Chinook, coho, sockeye, chum,

and pink salmon. Salmon are anadromous, meaning their eggs are laid and 

hatch in freshwater, and their young spend part of their early lives in freshwater 

before swimming to the ocean to grow and mature (Figure 4.1). Upon returning 

to their native stream, the adults spawn and then die. Cutthroat trout and 

steelhead are closely related to salmon. These two species can exhibit both 

anadromous and resident fish behaviors and are capable of spawning. In the

1990s, the federal fish and wildlife agencies listed several of the anadromous

salmon species as threatened and/or endangered. 

Figure 4.1: Salmon spend a significant part of their adult lives in the ocean. 

Therefore, it is primarily in their juvenile stages that they are exposed to 

contaminants in the Columbia River Basin. 

11
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

4.0 INDICATORS

Salmon as a Food Source 

Because adult salmon spend the majority of their lives in the ocean, the percentage of contaminant accumulation in their tissue from sources in the Columbia 

River Basin cannot be determined. Regardless of the source, contaminants in adult salmon could pose a threat to people who consume large amounts of 

salmon, especially Columbia River Basin tribal people for whom the salmon is an important part of their culture and a major food source. In addition, some 

recreational anglers and their families may consume large amounts of salmon. Given this, it is important to ensure that both tribes and anglers have the most 

up-to-date information to make informed decisions on how much salmon can be safely consumed. 

Pacific salmon die within days of digging their nests, or “redds,” and mating.

Their remains decompose, releasing nutrients for plants and other animals. 

Live and dead salmon are also important food for birds and mammals such as 

bald eagles, otters, and bears. In this way, salmon contribute to the health of 

freshwater ecosystems. 

Juvenile salmon are an important indicator of ecosystem health in the Basin 

because: (1) they are relatively widespread throughout the Basin; (2) they both 

forage in the River system and serve as a major food source for larger fish,

birds, and mammals; (3) they use many habitat types and therefore provide 

a means of assessing environmental conditions throughout the River system 

and estuary; (4) they go through physiological changes from juvenile to adult 

and therefore can be more susceptible to toxic contaminants; and (5) currently, 

13 species of salmon and steelhead in the Basin are listed as either threatened 

or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries 

and the University of California (UC) Davis are investigating how chemical 

contaminants affect juvenile salmon health and survival in the Lower Columbia 

River. In a recently published paper, they concluded that the adverse health 

effects of chemical contaminant exposure are similar to adverse health effects 

associated with passage through the hydropower system in the Columbia 

River. [1] 

Resident fish 

There are many native and nonnative resident fish species in the Basin,

including rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, large scale

sucker, bass, walleye, and northern pikeminnow. They are a common source 

of food for people and wildlife and are widely distributed throughout the 

Basin. Resident fish live their entire lives in the Basin and thus are exposed

to contaminants present in the water and sediments through their food, by 

breathing in oxygenated water through their gills, and by continuous contact 

with the water and sediments. In many of the Basin’s water bodies, these 

resident species have accumulated levels of some contaminants that are 

harmful to predators and to people. 

Resident fish are useful indicators because: (1) they are widely distributed

throughout the Basin; (2) most of the existing data on contaminants in 

the Basin are from resident fish species; (3) many species of resident fish

spend their lives in relatively small areas, so their tissue concentrations are 

indicative of the contaminant loads in those areas; and (4) they occupy a 

central place in the food web, are exposed to contaminants through their diet, 

and in turn expose those who eat them, including people, to any accumulated 

contaminants. 

12

vISIT THE WEB for more information about salmon in the Columbia River basin, go to: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/salmon-Recovery-planning/esa-Recovery-plans/Draft-plans.cfm. 
 

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

4.0 INDICATORS

Sturgeon 

White sturgeon are the largest 

freshwater fish in North

America, occurring in Pacific

Coast rivers from central 

California to Alaska’s Aleutian 

Islands. Some white sturgeon 

spend their entire life cycle in 

freshwater, while others use 

estuarine or coastal saltwater 

resources for growth and food, 

only entering freshwater to 

reproduce. 

White sturgeon inhabit the 

Columbia River and its larger 

tributaries, such as the Snake and Kootenai Rivers. Sturgeon can live 

100 years and grow up to 1,500 pounds and 15 feet long. Sturgeon are 

primarily bottom-dwelling fish. Juvenile sturgeon feed primarily on plankton

and aquatic insects, whereas adults feed mainly on live or decaying fish,

aquatic insects, and shellfish (e.g., Asian clams).

Sturgeon are not reproducing successfully throughout the Columbia River 

system. In Canada’s portion of the River, there has been no successful 

reproduction recorded in the wild over the last decade. For similar reasons, 

the Kootenai River population of white sturgeon has been listed on the federal 

endangered species list since 1994. 

White sturgeon are a good Columbia River indicator species for several 

reasons: (1) they are widely distributed in large rivers of the Basin; (2) they 

are long-lived and thus have prolonged exposure to toxic contaminants; 

(3) sturgeon migration is curtailed by dams in some portions of the Basin, 

allowing for evaluation of local toxics effects; (4) they are near the top of the 

food web; and (5) effects of contaminants on sturgeon are likely similar for 

other benthic, bottom-dwelling species. 

White Sturgeon (photo courtesy of Gretchen Kruse, 

Free Run Aquatic Research) 

Predatory birds—osprey and bald eagle in the Lower Columbia 

River 

Osprey and bald eagle are large birds of prey that live in much of the Basin, 

but they are concentrated in the Lower Columbia River. While the bald eagle 

is found exclusively in North America, the osprey has a nearly world-wide 

distribution. Bald eagles feed primarily on live or scavenged fish and aquatic

birds, while the osprey has a diet almost exclusively of live fish captured near

the nest. 

Osprey and bald eagles are useful indicators for evaluating the health of an 

aquatic ecosystem for several reasons: (1) they are widely distributed; (2) they 

are long-lived (bald eagles, for instance, can live up to 28 years in the wild); 

(3) they primarily prey on fish and other aquatic predators, usually near their

nests; and (4) they are at the top of the food web and are therefore exposed to 

high concentrations of contaminants through their diet. 

Osprey Bald Eagle 

(photos courtesy of NOAA/Dept. of Commerce) 

Aquatic mammals—mink and river otter 

Mink and river otter are members of the weasel family. They are excellent 

swimmers and are active predators that feed on fish, frogs, crayfish, and

sometimes small mammals and waterfowl. The average lifespan of mink in the 

13
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

4.0 INDICATORS

Mink (photo courtesy of U.S. Forest 

Service) 

North American River Otter (photo courtesy of 

USGS) 

wild is three to six years, whereas river otter average over eight years. Both are 

found throughout the Basin in appropriate habitat; however, mink populations 

have not recovered from a decline in the 1950s and 1960s, even though suitable 

habitat is available for them in the Lower Columbia River. 

Mink and otter are useful indicators of ecosystem health in the Basin because 

they: (1) prey on other aquatic species; (2) are particularly sensitive to 

contaminants which accumulate and can impact their reproduction; (3) have 

smaller home ranges compared to osprey and bald eagles; and (4) occur 

throughout the Basin. 

Sediment-dwelling shellfish—Asian clam 

First found in North America at Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in 1924, 

the nonnative, freshwater Asian clam is a small, light-colored bivalve now 

abundant throughout North America. It is widely distributed throughout a large 

portion of the Basin and has an average life span of three to five years. Located

primarily in flat-bottom sand or clay areas, Asian clams feed by filtering

particles from the surrounding water. They also routinely bury in the sediment 

for extended periods and filter sediment pore water.

Asian clams are a good indicator species for several reasons: (1) they are 

filter feeders and, like other freshwater shellfish, can collect and concentrate

contaminants in their bodies; (2) they are not very mobile, so data on clams 

can be more useful to pinpoint the location where they were exposed to 

the contaminants than similar or more mobile species; (3) because of their 

distribution and feeding habits, they are a useful indicator of sediment and 

water quality conditions in the Basin; and (4) they occupy a lower position in 

the food web than other indicator species. 

Lamprey 

Pacific lamprey are scaleless, jawless fish that are culturally important to the Columbia River tribes. Lamprey have declined drastically in the past 20 years and

are no longer found in many streams in their traditional range. Pacific lamprey spawn in freshwater streams. Juvenile lamprey (ammocoetes) spend their first

five to seven years in the sediment as filter feeders. Adult lamprey migrate to the ocean, where they feed parasitically on other fish for up to three years before

returning to freshwater streams to spawn. 

Because lamprey spend their developing years in the Basin’s streams, there are concerns that toxics may be a contributing factor in their declining numbers. 

Studies in locations outside the Columbia River Basin have documented the sensitivity of juvenile lamprey to toxics in their environment. [2,3] The unique life 

cycle of the lamprey with its potential for exposure to Basin contaminants distinguishes it as a potential indicator of ecosystem health. However, very little 

data have been collected on toxics in lamprey in the Columbia Basin. Because of this lack of data, lamprey are not discussed as an environmental indicator in 

this report. Given the cultural importance of lamprey to the Columbia River tribes, however, we will evaluate whether lamprey should be added as an indicator 

species after additional data on toxics in lamprey are collected and evaluated. 

14
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

5.0 

status and Trends for mercury, DDT, pCbs, and pbDes 

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

The contaminants discussed in this report—mercury, DDT, PCBs, and

PBDEs—come from a variety of sources and can potentially result in health

concerns for wildlife or people. Table 5.1 summarizes the sources and health 

concerns of these four contaminants. 

In order to evaluate whether the toxics reduction efforts currently under 

way in the Basin are having an impact or if other activities are needed, it is 

important to understand whether the levels of contaminants are increasing or 

Table 5.1: Contaminants of concern summary 

decreasing over time. While considerable information has been collected over 

the past 20 years, the data are limited with regard to whether the contaminants 

are increasing or decreasing Basin-wide. There is some trend information 

for specific areas of the Basin such as the Lower Columbia. While not

comprehensive, this report highlights trend data when such data are available. 

Contaminant Sources/Pathways Concern 

Mercury 

Atmospheric deposition from sources inside and outside the region is 

thought to be a major pathway for mercury. Other possible sources/ 

pathways include releases from past and current mining and smelting 

activities; erosion of native soils; agricultural activities; discharge of 

wastewater and stormwater; and resuspension and recirculation of 

sediments. 

Mercury can cause neurological, developmental, and 

reproductive problems in people and animals. 

DDT 

DDT was banned in the United States in 1972, but DDT and its breakdown 

products are still found in the environment in sediments and soil. The main 

pathway to the River is via runoff from agricultural land. 

DDT thins bird eggshells and causes reproductive and 

development problems. It is linked to cancer, liver disease, and 

hormone disruption in laboratory-test animals. 

PCBs 

PCBs were banned in the United States in 1976, but they are still widely 

found in the environment in fish tissue and sediments. Industrial spills 

and improper disposal are known sources locally, while incineration and 

atmospheric deposition bring PCBs from distant sources. Stormwater runoff 

and erosion may also be important pathways. 

PCBs can harm immune systems, reproduction, and 

development; increase the risk of cancer; and disrupt hormone 

systems in both people and aquatic life. 

PBDEs 

PBDE flame retardants are present in many consumer products, including 

electronics, textiles, and plastics. There is limited information on the 

transport pathways to the River, but some possible pathways include 

atmospheric deposition, municipal and industrial wastewater, stormwater 

discharge, and runoff. 

PBDEs accumulate in the environment, harming mammals’ 

reproduction, development, and neurological systems. They can 

increase the risk of cancer and disrupt hormone systems. 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

additional information and updates about mercury, DDT, pCbs, and pbDes can be found by visiting epa’s Columbia River vISIT THE WEB website: http://www.epa.gov/region10/columbia. 

15
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

Mercury: Most Fish Consumption Advisories in the 

Basin are due to High Concentrations of Mercury 

Mercury can affect the nervous system and brain, and even low doses can 

impair the physical and mental development of human fetuses and infants 

exposed via the mother’s diet. Fish consumption advisories generally 

discourage the consumption of larger fish and predatory fish, as they typically

contain higher concentrations of mercury. Figure 5.1 shows mercury 

concentrations found in fish from U.S. waters in the Columbia River Basin.

As a metallic element, mercury is never destroyed, but cycles between a 

number of chemical and physical forms. Mercury in the aquatic environment 

can be converted by bacteria to a more toxic form, called methylmercury. This 

process is important because methylmercury can biomagnify, so predators at 

the top of the food web will have much higher concentrations of mercury in 

their bodies than are found in the surrounding water or the algae and insects at 

the base of the food web. 

Methylmercury is the dominant form of mercury found in fish, and the

concentrations of methylmercury found in fish are directly related to the

amount available in the aquatic environment. The rate at which methylation 

of mercury occurs varies according to water body characteristics such as the 

amount of organic matter, sulfate, and iron present and the acidity, temperature, 

and water velocity. 

Several pathways introduce mercury into the Columbia River Basin 

Mercury enters the Columbia River and its tributaries via several pathways, 

including atmospheric deposition, runoff, wastewater discharges, industrial 

discharges, and mines. Based on available data, atmospheric deposition appears 

to be the major pathway for mercury loading to the Columbia River Basin. [1] 

Mercury air deposition includes both emissions from industrial facilities within 

and near the Basin and fallout from the pool of global mercury that has been can contribute the majority of mercury deposited on the local landscape. For transported from sources as far away as Asia and Europe. example, a cement plant in Durkee, Oregon, emits more than 2,500 pounds 

EPA estimates that the total mercury air deposition in the Columbia River Basin of mercury per year. [3] Although just over 140 pounds of this amount are 

is 11,500 pounds per year. [2] Approximately 84 percent of that load comes deposited in the sub-basin in which this plant is located, that deposition 

from global sources. At a watershed scale, however, local and regional sources constitutes an estimated 62 percent of the air-deposited load in that area. [4] 

Figure 5.1: Seventy-five percent of fish consumption advisories in the Columbia River Basin are 

due to mercury contamination. In the fish tested, high levels of mercury have been consistently 

found downstream of historic mining areas in the Willamette and Owyhee River Basins. There is 

no information about mercury levels in fish from waters that are unmarked on the map. 

16
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

As for regional sources, in northern Nevada near the Basin’s southeast 

boundary, several gold mines emit mercury from their ore roasters. One 

of these mines discharges more than 1,700 pounds of mercury per year. [3] 

Although only part of this load ends up in the Columbia River Basin, almost 

160 pounds are deposited in the nearby Upper Owyhee watershed in Idaho, 

accounting for 58 percent of the atmospheric mercury loading there. [4] In 

Idaho, the largest source of mercury emissions is an elemental phosphorus 

plant in Soda Springs. This plant emits more than 900 pounds per year [3] and 

contributes 36 percent of the mercury deposited in the adjacent watershed. [4] 

Across the United States, coal-fired power plants are a major local source, but

they are less significant sources in the Northwest because so few are located

here. There is a single coal-fired power plant in the Columbia River Basin

located near Boardman, in eastern Oregon. This plant emits about 168 pounds 

of mercury per year. [3] There are also three coal-fired power plants near the

boundary of the Basin (one in Washington and two in Nevada) that could 

contribute some mercury load to the watershed, depending upon their emissions 

and prevailing wind patterns. 

Not all of the mercury that falls onto land gets transported to water bodies. 

Forests and other undisturbed landscapes can retain mercury for years. 

Other point sources directly discharge mercury to rivers and streams. 

Wastewater treatment plants, industrial discharges, and stormwater runoff from 

streets and other developed areas are more direct sources of mercury to streams 

than air deposition or erosion. These sources may be low in concentration, but 

high in volume. Nine of the 23 largest municipal and industrial wastewater 

point sources located in the U.S. portion of the Columbia River have reported 

discharging a total of 33 pounds of mercury per year. [5] This may be an 

underestimate, however, because mercury reporting is not always required 

and mercury detection limits are often too high to provide useful information. 

Although these sources contribute less mercury to the basin than the air 

pathway, they may be significant at a local scale because they discharge directly

to water bodies. A smelter just north of the Canadian border directly discharged 

an average of 184 pounds of mercury per year to the Upper Columbia from 

1994 through 1998. This load was reduced to an average of 38 pounds of 

mercury per year for the 1999-2007 time period. [6] Historic mercury and gold 

mining can also be important sources that load mercury directly to streams and 

have significant impacts at a watershed scale.

Mercury is also still found in several commonly used products such as 

fluorescent light tubes, compact fluorescent lamps, thermometers, thermostats,

switches in vehicles, some batteries and pumps, and medical equipment such 

as blood pressure measuring devices. Although mercury has been or will be 

removed from some of these products, many of the older versions still contain 

mercury. If these older products are not handled and disposed of properly, they 

can add mercury to the environment. 

Regional trends and spatial patterns of mercury levels in the Basin 

can be difficult to evaluate 

Although data on mercury concentrations are available for resident fish

species in the Basin from the 1960s to the present, there are few locations with 

consistent, comparable data from different time periods that can be used to 

evaluate changes in mercury concentrations over time. Two exceptions, noted 

in Figure 5.2, are mercury concentrations in northern pikeminnow from the 

Willamette River Basin and mercury concentrations in osprey eggs in the Lower 

Columbia River, both of which have been increasing in the last decade. [7,8,9] 

The osprey egg concentrations, however, were still below levels that are of 

concern in birds. Another study shows that mercury concentrations increased in 

pikeminnows (1.12 to 1.91 parts per million [ppm]) from the Upper Willamette 

River between 1993 and 2001. [10] 

The Columbia River sturgeon population living in the pool behind Bonneville 

Dam has much higher concentrations of mercury in their livers than sturgeon 

in the estuary or other Columbia River reservoir pools. Sturgeon tissues 

from the Kootenai, Upper Columbia, and Snake Rivers contained mercury 

concentrations in the range of 0.02 to 0.6 ppm, but Bonneville pool sturgeon 

have mean concentrations of 4 ppm. [11,12,13,14] Also, high mercury levels in 

liver and other organs from Lower Columbia River white sturgeon are 

correlated with lower physical health indices and reproductive defects in the 

fish. [15,16,17,18,19] 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

17
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

Figure 5.2: Mercury levels in Willamette River northern pikeminnow and Lower 

Columbia River osprey eggs have increased over the last decade. Mercury level 

trends have not been studied in other Columbia River Basin organisms over the 

Figure 5.3: Mercury levels are highest in fish collected at Brownlee Dam reservoir, downstream from the Owyhee River inflow. The Owyhee River is contaminated by mercury 

from historic mining. Mercury concentrations vary across the basin, but only in some cases are the 

sources known. For example, in reservoirs in the Owyhee River basin [20,21] and 

in the Snake River downstream of the Owyhee confluence, mercury levels are

found above EPA’s 0.3-ppm mercury human health guideline due to mercury 

used in gold mining there in the 1800s (Figure 5.3). [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29] 

18
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

DDT: Banned in 1972, This Pesticide Still Poses a Threat 

to the Environment 

DDT is the most well-known of a class of pesticides that were widely 

used from the 1940s until EPA banned them in the United States in 1972. 

However, DDT continues to be used in other parts of the world. DDT and 

its breakdown products—dichlorophenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and

dichlorophenyldichloroethane (DDD)—have been linked to neurological and

developmental disorders in birds and other animals. DDT has also been linked 

to eggshell thinning that caused declines in many bird species and inspired 

Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, which documented detrimental 

effects of pesticides on bird species and ultimately led to the banning of DDT. 

The chemical structure of DDT is very stable in the environment, which is why 

DDT and its breakdown products DDE and DDD continue to be an ecological 

and human health threat. Figure 5.4 shows DDE concentrations found in fish

from U.S. waters in the Columbia River Basin. 

Soil erosion from agricultural runoff is the main source of DDT into 

the Basin 

The primary source of DDT to the Columbia River Basin is the considerable 

acreage of agricultural soils in which DDT accumulated over three decades of 

intensive use (1940s to early 1970s). DDT reaches the River when the soils are 

eroded by wind and water. Some irrigation practices increase soil erosion on 

agricultural lands. Other potential sources of DDT are areas where pesticides 

were handled or stored, such as barns or agricultural supply sheds, or areas 

where containers or unused product were disposed. The main pathway for these 

sources is erosion and runoff. Disturbance of contaminated sediments within 

the Columbia River and its tributaries may also release DDT to the water 

column, which can directly or indirectly be taken up by fish.

DDT levels are declining with better soil conservation practices, but 

DDT still exceeds human health levels of concern 

The ban on DDT combined with significant improvements in soil conservation

by farmers reduced DDT loading to the Columbia River Basin. [1] A number of 

state water quality improvement plans currently aim to reduce DDT 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

Figure 5.4: High levels of DDE in fish are found in areas where DDT pesticide use was 

historically high, such as in eastern Washington and the Snake River Plain. There is no 

information about DDE levels in fish from waters that are unmarked on the map. 

compounds, and continued monitoring is critical to demonstrating the 

effectiveness of these actions. 

Concentrations of DDT compounds in the Columbia River and its wildlife 

have decreased over the last 20 years. However, DDT is still regularly detected 

in the fish, plants, and sediments of the River and many of its tributaries,

indicating that DDT continues to cycle through the food web. In addition, fish

consumption advisories continue to be issued for DDT in Lake Chelan. 

19
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

DDT levels have declined in several of the key species of resident fish in areas

of the Columbia River Basin. DDT contamination has been most intensively 

studied in the Yakima River, which is a major tributary to the Columbia in 

Washington State and is in one of the most diverse agricultural areas of the 

country. [2] Data collected in the 1980s showed that fish in the Yakima River

Basin had some of the highest concentrations of DDT in the nation. [3] 

In the late 1990s, a partnership of farmers, irrigation districts, the Confederated 

Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and many governmental agencies 

initiated changes in farming and irrigation practices that have dramatically 

reduced erosion from farmland in the Yakima Basin (see Section 6.0 of this 

report). Sampling of resident fish conducted between 1996 and 2006 showed

an overall decline in DDT levels in several species, including bass and sucker 

(Figure 5.5). [4,5] 

By contrast, liver tissues from Columbia River white sturgeon residing in the 

pool upstream of Bonneville Dam contained much higher concentrations of 

DDT than other sub-populations of sturgeon residing in the Columbia River 

Basin (Figure 5.6). [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13] The cause of these elevated concentrations is 

not known. 

DDT is also a problem for fish-eating birds such as bald eagles and osprey.

Severe declines in eagle populations in the Lower Columbia River occurred 

from the 1950s to1975. Studies conducted along the Lower Columbia River 

from 1980 to 1987 found elevated concentrations of DDE in bald eagles. [14] 

High concentrations of DDE are associated with eggshell thinning and low 

reproductive success. 

Figure 5.5: DDE levels in Yakima River fish have declined significantly since 1998.	 Figure 5.6: Sturgeon in the pool behind Bonneville Dam have much higher 

levels of DDT and other contaminants (such as mercury and PCBs) than do 

sturgeon downstream of the dam or sturgeon in pools behind upstream dams. 

20
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

Successful reproduction of bald eagles along the Columbia River was also 

found to be considerably lower than the statewide average for Oregon. [15,16] 

DDE concentrations in Columbia River eagle eggs in the 1980s were the 

highest recorded for bald eagles in the western United States, surpassed only by 

levels found in eagle eggs from highly contaminated areas of the eastern United 

States. [14] 

In a similar study in the mid-1990s, researchers found that total DDE 

concentrations in Columbia River eagle eggs declined significantly in

comparison to concentrations found in the mid-1980s (Figure 5.7). [15,16] 

Prior to the use of DDT, nesting osprey were common along the Lower 

Columbia and Willamette Rivers, [17] but populations declined dramatically 

from the 1950s to the 1970s. As with eagles, DDT was the primary cause of 

osprey population decline because of eggshell thinning. Figure 5.8 shows the (photos courtesy of Peter McGowan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

Figures 5.8 and 5.9: Nesting pairs of osprey and bald eagle have increased significantly from 

near-regional extinction in the 1970s, due to reductions of DDT and other contaminants in the [19,21] environment. 

increase in nesting osprey along the Willamette River, an important tributary 

of the Columbia River, from 1976 to 2001. Similar trends have been found in 

the Columbia River. A 1976 survey of the 300-mile-long Oregon side of the 

Columbia River found only one occupied osprey nest. [18,19] In 2004, there were 

225 osprey nests in the same area. Scientists recorded a 69 percent decrease in 

DDT levels in osprey eggs from the Lower Columbia River between 1997 and 

2004, coinciding with an increase from 94 to 225 osprey nests. [20] 

Since the late 1970s, the number of bald eagle nesting pairs along the Lower 

Columbia River also has increased (Figure 5.9). In 2006, there were over 133 

nesting pairs of bald eagles, up from 22 in 1980. However, researchers also 

found that long-established eagle pairs that had been breeding for many years 

along the Lower Columbia River produced about half the number of young as 

eagles that had more recently begun nesting there. The greater reproductive 

success of the newer nesting bald eagle population is attributed in large part to 

reduced exposure to DDT. [16]
 

21

Figure 5.7: DDT levels have decreased significantly in eagle and osprey eggs from the 

Lower Columbia River over the past 20 years.
 
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

PCBs: Stable PCB Compounds Continue to Persist in 

the Environment 

PCBs are a class of man-made compounds known for their chemical and 

thermal stability. PCBs were manufactured to take advantage of these 

properties in such applications as electric transformers and capacitors, heat 

exchange and hydraulic fluids, lubricants, fluorescent light ballasts, fire

retardants, plastics, epoxy paints, and other materials. Before PCBs were 

banned in the 1970s, approximately 700 million tons of PCBs were produced in 

the United States, and hundreds of tons remain in service today. 

Environmental concentrations of PCBs decrease very slowly because they are 

stable and persistent. PCBs tend to concentrate in the fatty tissue of fish and

other animals and can be passed from mother to young. PCBs have been linked 

to liver damage, disruption of neuro-development, reproductive problems, and 

some forms of cancer. PCB levels have triggered fish and shellfish advisories in

the Lower Columbia River and several other water bodies in the Basin. 

Figure 5.10 shows PCB concentrations found in fish from U.S. waters in the

Columbia River Basin. 

PCBs enter the ecosystem from multiple sources and through 

multiple pathways 

PCBs in the Columbia River Basin tend to be associated with industrial 

locations, where spills or historic handling practices (such as disposing of 

PCB-contaminated materials in unlined landfills near the River or dumping

such materials directly into the River) were more likely to occur. Several 

examples of known PCB disposal sites in the Lower Columbia River include 

Bradford Island at Bonneville Dam; Alcoa Smelter in Vancouver, Washington; 

and Portland Harbor on the Willamette. In addition, historically, many pieces reach the Columbia River Basin. Regionally, snowmelt, stormwater runoff and of electrical equipment used to generate power at dams in the Columbia River discharge, and soil erosion are pathways by which PCBs deposited on land are Basin used cooling and insulating oil that contained PCBs. Past practices such transported to water. PCBs entering rivers and streams from stormwater runoff 

as the use of PCB-laden paint in fish hatcheries and the use of oils tainted with and discharge are a growing concern. PCBs are not very water-soluble, but PCBs to control dust on unpaved roads also led to PCB contamination. they do adhere to organic matter and sediment particles, so they have a high 

Inefficient incineration of PCB-containing materials, followed by atmospheric potential to be transported when sediment is transported (such as during storms 

deposition, is the primary means by which PCBs from other parts of the world and floods) and then accumulate in pools or reservoirs.

Figure 5.10: A legacy contaminant, PCB hot spots correspond to areas of historic industrial 

use or disposal sites. There is no information about PCB levels in fish from waters that are 

unmarked on the map. 

22
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

PCBs in fish are declining but still exceed EPA human and 

ecological health concern levels in some areas 

In the early 1990s, the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) found 

high concentrations of PCBs in rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and largescale sucker in the Spokane River. [1] The Department took steps to identify 

and clean up hazardous waste sites and reduce PCB inputs from municipal 

and industrial wastewater dischargers. As a result, concentrations of PCBs in 

rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and sucker have decreased between 1992

and 2005 in almost every reach of the Spokane River (Figure 5.11). [1,2,3,4,5] 

As with mercury and DDT, several studies have revealed that Columbia River 

sturgeon living in the pool behind Bonneville Dam contained much higher 

concentrations of PCBs in their livers than sturgeon in other areas of the 

Basin. [6] 

Recent studies indicate that juvenile fall Chinook salmon from throughout 

the Basin are accumulating toxic contaminants, including PCBs, in their 

tissues. [7,8,9] As shown in Figure 5.12, PCB concentrations in juvenile salmon 

are higher in out-migrating juveniles sampled in the Lower Columbia River 

near the confluence of the Willamette River than in juveniles sampled

at Warrendale just below the Bonneville Dam. Two studies of PCB 

Figure 5.11: PCB levels in rainbow trout from throughout the Spokane River have declined 

due to hazardous waste cleanup efforts and a reduction in the amount of PCBs discharged in 

wastewater. 

Figure 5.12: Migrating juvenile salmon, regardless of where they began their migration, 

consistently show higher levels of PCBs when captured in the Lower Columbia River below 

the Bonneville Dam. 

23
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

concentrations in water also showed higher dissolved PCBs near the Portland/ 

Vancouver area and downstream of the Willamette River than were found 

upstream near Bonneville Dam. [7,10] This suggests that there are significant

sources of PCBs in the Lower Columbia River. 

There are currently no data to indicate whether PCB levels in the mainstem 

of the Columbia River are increasing or decreasing. However, at some sites 

PCB concentrations in salmon were as high as or higher than those observed 

in juvenile salmon from industrial contamination sites in Puget Sound 

(Duwamish Waterway Superfund site in Seattle, Washington). At several sites 

in the Columbia River, salmon PCB concentrations were above levels at which 

juvenile salmon may be harmed (Figure 5.13). 

PCBs can also adversely affect the ability of mink and otter to reproduce. 

Mink are especially sensitive to the toxic effects of PCBs. Studies in the late 

1970s showed that PCBs in mink from the Lower Columbia River were as 

high as those levels that are reported to cause total reproductive failure in 

female mink. [11] 

Concentrations of PCBs in mink and otter have declined dramatically 

since the 1970s (Figure 5.14). [11,12,13] Despite these declines in contaminant 

concentrations and the presence of suitable habitat, mink remain scarce in the 

Lower Columbia. While there is a relatively dense otter population distributed 

throughout the Lower Columbia River, otters there have higher PCB 

concentrations compared to otters in other areas of Oregon and Washington. [14] 

Figure 5.13: PCBs in juvenile salmon from several Lower Columbia 

River sites are similar to levels found in juvenile salmon at the 

Duwamish Waterway Superfund site in Seattle, Washington. 

Figure 5.14: PCBs are decreasing in multiple fish-eating predators from the Lower Columbia 

River, due to decreased PCB use and contaminated site cleanup. 

24
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

Like DDT, PCBs bioaccumulate in bald eagles and osprey. While PCB 

concentrations in eagle eggs from the Lower Columbia River were the highest 

recorded in the western United States in the 1980s, PCB levels are decreasing 

in both of these top predators (Figure 5.14). [15,16,17] 

In 2005, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) researchers used the 

Asian clam to describe distribution patterns of PCBs in the Lower Columbia 

River. [18] After analyzing samples from 36 stations, the researchers found 

distinctive spatial patterns related to the specific site from which the clams

were collected. All clams collected had detectable levels of PCBs. Especially 

high levels of PCBs, ranging from 382 to 3,500 parts per billion (ppb), were 

found downstream of the Alcoa plant, a WADOE hazardous waste cleanup site 

(Figure 5.15) on the Washington side of the River. 

Although “safe” levels for PCB consumption have not been formally 

established, the Clark County Health Office, State of Washington, recommends

that seafood with PCB levels of up to 50 ppb should generally be eaten no more 

than two or three times per month. 

vISIT THE WEB 

for more information on pCbs and the 

alcoa cleanup, go to: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/industrial/alum_alcoavan.htm. Figure 5.15: Clams collected in the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area indicate PCB 

hot spots near the Alcoa plant, a WADOE hazardous waste cleanup site. 

25
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

PBDEs: Concern over Flame Retardants is Growing 

PBDEs are a commonly used flame retardant. Many industries and states,

including Washington, are phasing out products containing PBDEs. PBDEs are 

of concern because their levels have increased rapidly in soil, air, wildlife, and 

human tissue and breast milk. 

The health effects of PBDEs have not been studied in people. Laboratory 

animal studies show neurological, behavioral, reproductive, and developmental 

effects and even cancer at very high doses. 

PBDEs are in many everyday products 

Since the 1960s, PBDEs have been added to plastics and fabrics to reduce the 

likelihood that these materials will catch fire or burn easily when exposed to

flame or high heat. PBDEs are used in electrical appliances; TV sets; building

materials; home, auto, and business upholstery; and rug and drapery textiles. 

They are released slowly to the environment from production, use, and disposal 

of these products. PBDEs, like PCBs, remain in the environment for a long 

time. PBDEs accumulate in all animals, but the concentrations continue to 

increase as an animal ages. However, unlike PCBs, EPA does not currently 

regulate PBDEs and only recently published a standard method for measuring 

PBDEs in environmental samples. 

Figure 5.16 shows PBDE concentrations found in fish from U.S. waters in the

Columbia River Basin. 

Information on how PBDEs enter the environment is limited 

While there is limited understanding on how PBDEs enter the environment, 

several studies have indicated that municipal wastewater may be a significant

pathway. [1,2,3,4,5] PBDEs in dust and air are a direct pathway of exposure to 

people, but the importance of air and atmospheric deposition of PBDEs as 

a source to the Columbia River Basin is unknown. Runoff from municipal 

sewage sludge placed on land is also being examined as a possible source of 

PBDEs to surface water. [4,5,6] A study of PBDE contamination in the Canadian 

portion of the Columbia River found a correlation between high PBDE levels 

and areas where septic systems were concentrated near the River. [7] 

Figure 5.16: PBDEs are being detected and are increasing in fish in the Columbia River Basin. 

There is no information about PBDE levels in fish from waters that are unmarked on the map.
 

26
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

Levels of PBDEs in the Columbia River are increasing 

In 1996, 1999, and 2005, the WADOE studied PBDE concentrations in 

sucker, mountain whitefish, and rainbow trout in the Spokane River

(Figure 5.17). [8,9,10] PBDE levels in these species are increasing in most 

reaches of the Spokane River. The most dramatic increases were found in 

mountain whitefish downstream from the Spokane metropolitan area at

Ninemile Reach. 

Although relatively little PBDE data have been collected in the Columbia 

River Basin, the studies show that PBDEs are present and are increasing in 

the waters of the Columbia and several of its tributaries. [7] The studies further 

show that PBDEs are not only accumulating in larger fish [9] but are being taken 

up by juvenile salmon as well. [11] 

In 2005, PBDEs were detected in all Asian clams collected from 36 stations 

throughout the Lower Columbia River. [12] The Lower Columbia appears to be 

an important source of PBDEs for salmon on their migration to the ocean based 

on the difference in PBDE concentrations in juvenile salmon above and below 

Bonneville Dam (Figure 5.18). 

Figure 5.17: PBDE levels in Spokane River fish have increased since 1996. 

Figure 5.18: Migrating juvenile salmon, regardless of where they began their migration, 

consistently show higher levels of PBDEs when captured in the Lower Columbia River 

below the Bonneville Dam. 

27
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

Summary of Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs 

Table 5.2 summarizes the status of concentration levels for the four contaminants discussed in this report and their concentration trends where available. 

Table 5.2. Summary of status and concentration trends for the selected indicator species 

MERCuRy 

lndicator Species Status Concentration Trend over Time 

Resident fish - bass, whitefish, sucker, trout, 

walleye, northern pikeminnow 

Increasing concentrations in fish tissue and bird eggs have 

been seen in the Snake and Willamette River Basins and other 

locations affected by regional sources compared to other areas 

within the Basin. 

↑

Juvenile salmon No Trend Data 

Sturgeon No Trend Data 

Predatory birds – bald eagle and osprey ↑

Fish-eating mammals - mink and otter No Trend Data 

Sediment-dwelling shellfish - Asian clam No Trend Data 

Note: An upward-pointing red arrow indicates an increasing trend. 

DDT AND BREAKDOWN PRODuCTS 

lndicator Species Status Concentration Trend over Time 

Resident fish - bass, whitefish, sucker, trout, 

walleye, northern pikeminnow 

The Columbia River Basin received some of the heaviest DDT 

loadings in the United States prior to the 1972 ban. 

Levels have decreased dramatically since the 1970s but are still 

above health effects limits for people, fish, and wildlife in many 

areas of the Basin. 

↓

Juvenile salmon No Trend Data 

Sturgeon No Trend Data 

Predatory birds - bald eagle and osprey ↓

Fish-eating mammals - mink and otter ↓

Sediment-dwelling shellfish - Asian clam No Trend Data 

Note: A downward-pointing green arrow indicates a decreasing trend. 

28
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

5.0 STATuS AND TRENDS FOR MERCuRy, DDT, PCBS, AND PBDES 

Table 5.2. Summary of status and concentration trends for the selected indicator species (cont) 

PCBs 

lndicator Species Status Concentration Trend 

over Time 

Resident fish - bass, whitefish, sucker, trout, 

walleye, northern pikeminnow PCB levels have generally declined since they were banned in 

the 1970s. 

Because PCBs are very stable and bioaccumulate in long- lived 

species and top predators, they are still a concern. 

Every state in the basin still has areas with fish consumption 

advisories and levels that exceed species effects levels. 

Sources are still being discovered. 

↓

Juvenile salmon No Trend Data 

Sturgeon No Trend Data 

Predatory birds - bald eagle and osprey ↓

Fish-eating mammals - mink and otter ↓

Sediment-dwelling shellfish - Asian clam No Trend Data 

Note: An upward-pointing red arrow indicates a decreasing trend. 

PBDEs 

lndicator Species Status Concentration Trend 

over Time 

Resident fish - bass, whitefish, sucker, trout, 

walleye, northern pikeminnow 

In areas where data have been collected, levels of these 

chemicals are showing rapid increases. 

Though some studies have detected developmental and other 

impacts for humans and other species, there are currently no 

established effects levels for human or other species’ health. 

↑

Juvenile salmon No Trend Data 

Sturgeon No Trend Data 

Predatory birds – bald eagle and osprey ↑

Fish-eating mammals - mink and otter No Trend Data 

Sediment-dwelling shellfish - Asian clam No Trend Data 

Note: An upward-pointing red arrow indicates an increasing trend. 

29
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS

—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 

Toxics Reduction efforts—Current and planned
 

States, tribes, communities, non-profit groups, EPA, and other federal agencies

have launched a long-term recovery effort to improve the water, land, and 

air quality of the Basin. These groups are working together to enhance and 

accomplish critical ecosystem restoration efforts. A number of toxics reduction 

efforts are under way throughout the Basin as a part of this recovery effort. 

States are Improving Water Quality and Reducing 

Toxics 

State agencies are developing water quality improvement plans 

The Federal Clean Water Act requires states to list all water bodies under 

their control that do not meet water quality standards. The states are then 

required to develop water quality improvement plans for those impaired waters 

so they will meet water quality standards. These plans, also known as total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) (Table 6.1), are in place or are being developed 

throughout the Basin for toxics. 

Through implementation of these TMDLs, water quality is improved using a 

combination of pollution controls on point sources; programs to reduce nonpoint sources such as urban stormwater and agricultural runoff; and cleanup of 

known sources of contaminants such as abandoned mines or hazardous waste 

sites. 

Oregon is using human health criteria to limit toxics 

In October 2008, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission 

recommended that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 

revise the human health criteria as a part of Oregon’s water quality standards. 

The Commission has asked for a proposed rule with a fish consumption rate

of 175 grams per day (instead of the current rate of 17.5 grams per day) and 

a broader toxics reduction implementation strategy. This recommendation 

was a result of a two-year collaborative process led by EPA, ODEQ, and the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The recommended fish

consumption rate of 175 grams per day represents approximately the 90th to 

95th percentile of Oregon’s fish-consuming populations, as indicated by studies

of tribes, Asians, and Pacific Islanders in Oregon and Washington. [1] 

ODEQ’s water quality standards play an important role in maintaining and 

restoring environmental quality. Human health criteria are used to limit the 

amount of toxic pollutants that enter Oregon’s waterways and accumulate 

in the fish and shellfish consumed by Oregonians. The criteria also serve as

the framework for wastewater permits, nonpoint source reduction activities, 

stormwater permits, and sediment cleanup efforts. The criteria help ensure 

that people may eat fish and shellfish from local waters without incurring

unacceptable health risks. A final rule on the revised criteria is expected in

October 2009. 

EPA and States are using Permits to Control Toxics 

The Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) program controls the quality of water discharged into the Basin from 

point sources such as wastewater treatment plants, mines, and pulp and paper 

plants. Federal, state, and local NPDES permits limit the amount of pollutants 

from municipal, industrial, and stormwater discharges so that the quality of 

the water body receiving the discharge is not impacted or further impaired. 

Facilities that have an NPDES permit must conduct routine monitoring and are 

fined or required to install pollution controls if their NPDES permit conditions

for water quality are not met. However, data on the amounts of many toxics 

(including DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs) entering the Columbia River from 

stormwater and from municipal and 

industrial dischargers are limited. 

Stormwater and erosion controls 

are increasingly important in 

urban and developing areas to 

keep contaminants from reaching 

lakes, rivers, and streams. This is 

done through stormwater NPDES 

permitting and a combination 

of best management practices 

(BMPs) and public education. 

Many communities and industries Combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfall 

(photo courtesy of WADOE) 

30
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS

—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

Table 6.1: Toxics TMDLs that have been approved or are under development in the Washington, Oregon, and Idaho areas of the Columbia River Basin 

State River Toxics 

Washington 

Yakima Chlorinated Pesticides (e.g., DDT) and PCBs 

Spokane Metals, PCBs 

Okanogan DDT, PCBs 

Walla Walla Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs 

Palouse Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs 

Lake Chelan DDT, PCBs 

Mission Creek (Wenatchee) DDT 

Columbia Dioxins 

Similkameen Arsenic 

Oregon 

Columbia Dioxins 

Columbia Slough Lead, PCBs, Dioxins, DDT, Dieldrin 

Coast Fork Willamette Mercury 

Cottage Grove Reservoir Mercury 

Pudding DDT, Dieldrin, Chlordane 

Johnson Creek DDT, Dieldrin 

Willamette Mercury 

Row River Mercury 

Snake River DDD, DDE, DDT, Dieldrin 

Idaho 

Salmon Falls Reservoir Mercury 

Jordan Creek Mercury 

East Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Coeur D’Alene) Metals 

Snake River DDD, DDE, DDT, Dieldrin 

Columbia Dioxins 

are adopting innovative stormwater management techniques that improve the treatment wetlands; and filtration through vegetated swales. Such stormwater

quality of the discharged water before it reaches lakes, rivers, and streams. management practices also reduce flooding, erosion, and direct runoff of

These include porous pavement to reduce runoff; diversion of runoff from contaminants to waterways. 

storm sewers into natural systems (e.g., vegetated buffers); retention and 

31
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS

—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

Federal Government and States are Working to Clean 

up Hazardous Waste in the Basin 

Several contaminated sites in the Basin are being cleaned up and managed 

under EPA Superfund or state toxic cleanup programs. For example, since 

1983, EPA has been working with the State of Idaho, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 

and mining companies to clean up the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical 

Superfund site in the Coeur d’Alene Basin. The area’s many mines were 

once a primary source of our nation’s zinc, copper, lead, and precious metals. 

A comprehensive, integrated approach, using all available regulatory tools 

such as the Clean Water Act and 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act, has been employed to help protect 

human health and the environment in this 

heavily contaminated watershed. 

Furthermore, in the Upper Columbia 

River above Grand Coulee Dam, 

several investigations and cleanups are 

ongoing in the areas that drain into Lake 

Roosevelt. In Montana, cleanup efforts 

in the upper Clark Fork and Flathead 

basins have reduced copper, lead, arsenic, 

and zinc contamination into the Columbia 

River tributaries. [2] In the Middle Columbia River, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is working to prevent contaminated groundwater on the Hanford 

Nuclear Reservation from reaching the Columbia River. Work is also under 

way to clean up contaminated sediment from the Portland Harbor Superfund 

site, located on the lower Willamette River near its confluence with the Lower

Columbia to reduce PCBs, DDT, and many other toxic contaminants. 

In addition to the federally listed Superfund sites, each state manages its 

own list of contaminated site cleanup projects. States work with the federal 

Cleanup of an Idaho mine near the 

Salmon River (photo courtesy of EPA) 

agencies and with businesses and property owners to develop site assessment 

and cleanup plans and then conduct cleanup activities. Many contaminated 

sites in the Basin are in various stages of planning and cleanup for a variety 

of contaminants. Two examples of PCB-contaminated sites on the Columbia 

River are the Bradford Island site at the Bonneville Dam and the Alcoa plant 

in Vancouver, Washington. An accelerated cleanup is planned by the State 

of Washington at the Alcoa site, where sediment removal is scheduled for 

November 2008. 

upper Columbia River Investigation and Cleanup 

EPA is studying hazardous waste contamination in the Upper Columbia 

River from the U.S./Canadian border down to Grand Coulee Dam and 

the surrounding upland areas. The investigation and cleanup site under 

EPA Superfund authority, located in northeastern Washington, consists 

of 150 miles of river and lake environment. From about 1930 to 1995, 

the Teck Cominco smelter in Trail, B.C., located 10 miles north of 

the U.S./Canadian border, discharged millions of tons of metals-laden 

slag and other wastes directly into the Columbia River. The waste 

discharged from the facility was carried downstream into the United 

States and has settled in the River’s low-flow areas, beaches, and stream

banks, potentially impacting the ecosystem in and around the Upper 

Columbia River. 

In 2004, EPA began investigating the contamination problems in the 

Upper Columbia. In the first phase of the investigation, EPA collected

over 400 sediment and 1,000 fish samples, along with samples from

15 beaches. Over the next several years, additional sediment, fish, and

beach samples will be collected. 

32
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS

—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

Bradford Island PCB Cleanup 

In 1997 and 1998, USGS biologists found higher levels of PCBs in osprey 

eggs collected near Bonneville Dam than in eggs from other reaches of 

the Columbia River. [3] Also, in the late 1990s, very high levels of PCBs 

were found in crayfish collected near Bradford Island, which is part of

the Bonneville Lock and Dam Complex. Based on this information, the 

Oregon Department of Human Services issued an advisory cautioning 

people against consuming crayfish, clams, or other bottom-dwelling

organisms between Bonneville Dam and Ruckel Creek, about a mile 

upstream. 

The PCB contamination came from disposal of electrical equipment on 

Bradford Island and the Columbia River during the 1950s. In response, the 

USACE removed PCB-containing equipment and some sediments in 2002. 

In 2007, the Corps completed the removal of PCB sediment “hot-spots” 

over a one-acre area that was estimated to contain over 90 percent of the 

PCB contamination on Bradford Island. The Corps continues to work 

with ODEQ to evaluate and remove the remaining PCB-contaminated 

sediments. 

Portland Harbor Superfund Cleanup Site 

The Portland Harbor Superfund site study area is focused on an 

11-mile stretch of the lower Willamette River from downtown Portland, 

Oregon, to the Columbia River. Sediments at the site are contaminated 

with metals, pesticides (e.g., DDT), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), PCBs, and dioxin/furans from a variety of sources. EPA is 

overseeing a remedial investigation and feasibility study being conducted 

by a group of potentially responsible parties referred to as the Lower 

Willamette Group. EPA is the lead agency for investigating and cleaning 

up contaminated sediment in the Willamette. The ODEQ is the lead 

agency for investigating and cleaning up the upland sites that are 

potential sources of contamination to the Willamette. A draft feasibility 

study, which will evaluate cleanup strategies and methods, is targeted 

for late 2010. EPA will then issue a proposed cleanup plan for public 

comment before making a final decision on the harbor-wide cleanup. In

addition to the harbor-wide investigation, several early actions are under 

way to clean up individual sites that need more immediate attention. 

additional information about the upper Columbia, bradford island, and portland harbor 

vISIT THE WEB investigations and cleanups can be found by visiting epa’s Columbia River basin website: 

http://www.epa.gov/region10/columbia. 

33
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS

—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

State and Local Partnerships are Working to Improve 

Farming Practices 

Partnerships and volunteer efforts are reducing runoff from farms 

The Columbia River Basin supports some of the most important agricultural 

regions in the United States. Clean water for food production is critical, but 

agricultural practices can degrade water quality by contributing eroded soil, 

nutrients, and pesticides to nearby waters. Agricultural BMPs are used to 

improve water quality, often with the added benefits of improving water and

soil conservation and soil fertility. 

BMPs are usually developed and implemented by partnerships between 

farmers, local conservation districts and university extension services, state 

and federal agriculture and water quality agencies, tribal governments, and 

local watershed groups. They have become a critical component of TMDLs in 

agricultural watersheds such as the Yakima River. 

The agricultural community can be leaders in reducing toxics in the Columbia 

River Basin. Voluntary agricultural activities provide a great opportunity to 

reduce toxics in the Basin 

by reducing legacy toxics 

such as DDT and currentuse pesticides, especially 

organophosphates. Toxic 

contaminants reach the 

Columbia River Basin 

from sediment transport 

and deposition and have 

contributed to the longtime degradation of water 

quality and fish and wildlife

habitat. Sediments may 

as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], PCBs, and pesticides such as 

DDT, chlordane, and atrazine). Most of these contaminants cling to particles 

suspended in the water and settle to the bottom; therefore, their concentrations 

in sediments are typically much higher than in water. 

Washington is working to control soil erosion and reduce pesticide 

runoff in the Yakima River Basin 

The Yakima River Basin serves as a successful example of sediment cleanup 

and pesticide reduction efforts. [4] DDT was used extensively in the Yakima 

Valley from the 1940s until it was banned in 1972, and it persists in Yakima 

Basin soils. Erosion of these soils allows pesticides to reach the aquatic 

environment, where they accumulate in fish and in the people and wildlife

that eat fish. Recognizing this, the WADOE, Yakima Valley growers, water

purveyors, local conservation districts, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands 

of the Yakama Nation worked together to implement BMPs to reduce DDT and 

other pesticides by modifying irrigation practices to reduce the amount of soil 

carried to the Yakima River by irrigation returns. 

DDT clings to organic 

particles in soil; therefore, 

reducing soil erosion 

from agricultural fields

and the associated 

sediments should reduce 

runoff polluted with 

pesticides like DDT. 

After the BMPs were 

initiated, suspended 

sediment loading to the 

Lower Yakima River 

during the irrigation 

transport trace metals (such season was reduced Yakima Valley irrigation ditch before implementation of BMPs (left) and Yakima Valley irrigation ditch with BMPs to control 

as arsenic and copper) and erosion and reduce runoff (right) (photos courtesy of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Environmental between 67 and 

organic compounds (such Management Program) 80 percent. Total DDT 

34
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS

—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

concentrations in fish were reduced by 30 to 85 percent in the same area after

implementation of the BMPs. The accompanying photos show soil eroded by 

surface irrigation into a return drain before BMPs were implemented; later, 

with BMPs, the soil is retained by a grass filter strip between crop and drain.

Oregon is working with farmers to reduce pesticide runoff 

Another example of toxics reduction from agriculture in the Columbia River 

Basin is Oregon’s Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships. These partnerships are 

voluntary collaborations to reduce pesticide use and improve water quality. 

Such collaborations typically include local watershed councils, ODEQ, 

agricultural growers, Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service, and 

tribes. Pilot projects in the Columbia Gorge, Hood River, and Fifteen-Mile 

Creek near The Dalles, Oregon, showed substantial improvements in water 

quality due to changes in pesticide management and application practices. 

In addition, ODEQ has launched Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships in six 

watersheds in the Basin: the Walla Walla, Clackamas, Pudding, Yamhill, 

Willamette, and Hood River Basins. 

For example, the Walla Walla partnership has reduced pesticide concentrations 

in Oregon’s Walla Walla River Basin. [5] In 2006, high levels of five toxic

pesticides were found in tributaries of the Little Walla Walla River. In response, 

the ODEQ, OSU Extension Service, fruit growers (Blue Mountain Horticultural 

Society), and Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council worked together to monitor 

and control current-use pesticides that reach surface water by spray drift and 

runoff from fruit orchards. To accomplish this, ODEQ and its partners installed 

vegetated buffers adjacent to surface waters, switched to using less toxic 

pesticides and mineral oil, provided individualized applicator training, and 

calibrated sprayers to avoid overspray. 

The monitoring results in 2007-2008, after implementation of the practices 

described above, showed dramatic declines in several pesticides, including 

large reductions of one of the most toxic pesticides, chlorpyrifos (Figure 6.1). 

In addition, ODEQ has worked with partners in the Walla Walla Basin to 

conduct two agricultural pesticide collection events to remove unwanted waste 

Figure 6.1: Concentrations of chlorpyrifos dropped after measures were implemented to keep 

pesticides from reaching nearby surface waters in Oregon. 

2006-2008 Walla Walla Basin Monitoring 

Median of Chlorpyrifos Detections 

0.00 

0.10 

0.20 

0.30 

0.40 

0.50 

0.60 

0.70 

0.80 

0.90 

1.00 

1.10 

1.20 

2006 2007 2008 (preliminary) 

Median (ppb) 

LIttle WW River, West Branch/Crockett 

West Prong Little WW River, S. of Stateline Rd. 

Acute WQ Criterion = 0.083 ppb 

Chronic WQ Criterion = 0.041 ppb 

pesticides from the watershed. Over 17,000 pounds of pesticide waste were 

collected and properly disposed of from these events. 

State and Local Governments are Removing Toxics from 

Communities 

The State of Washington passed one of the first state bans on PBDEs in the

summer of 2007. This ban is part of the state’s overall initiative to reduce the 

threat from persistent and bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) by keeping toxics out 

of products and industrial processes. The ban is being phased in over a two-year 

period, with an emphasis on finding a safer and feasible alternative. Oregon

is also working to reduce and control PBTs, particularly for large municipal 

wastewater dischargers. All of the Basin states have mercury reduction 

35
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS

—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

programs to promote recycling of thermometers and fluorescent lamps

containing mercury, and each state works with dentists, hospitals, and vehicle 

recyclers to capture and recycle mercury. For example, separating mercury 

from wastewater in dental offices prevents mercury from reaching wastewater

treatment plants and the Columbia River. Oregon and Washington also sponsor 

collection of mercury recovered by small-scale mineral miners from streams 

and rivers. 

State, county, and local toxics reduction programs help businesses and private 

citizens reduce the use of toxic chemicals and ensure the proper disposal 

of hazardous wastes such as pesticides, solvents, batteries, electronics, 

PBDE-containing materials, and pharmaceuticals. For example, Idaho’s 

pesticide disposal program prevents thousands of pounds of unusable 

pesticides from reaching the environment each year. Under this program, 

the Idaho State Department of Agriculture assists growers, homeowners, 

dealers, and applicators with the disposal of pesticides that have become 

unusable because of expiration, cancellation, deterioration, or crop changes. 

Individuals can dispose of up to 1,000 pounds of pesticide at no charge. 

Permanent collection points are established throughout the state; materials 

are collected annually and taken to a licensed facility for incineration. From 

2003 to 2007, 328,000 pounds of unusable pesticides have been collected, 

and over 870,000 pounds have been collected since the program’s inception in 

1993 (Figure 6.2). [6] The program also collects and recycles empty pesticide 

containers. Washington and Oregon are also sponsoring pesticide take-back 

programs, which have recovered thousands of pounds of banned pesticides 

such as DDT. 

Another Idaho initiative is the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s 

(IDEQ’s) school laboratory and chemical cleanup project. This project assists 

schools in understanding and implementing best practices for managing 

and disposing of their large stockpiles of hazardous chemicals and wastes, 

including mercury. 

Figure 6.2: Amount of pesticides collected under Idaho’s pesticide disposal 

program (2003–2007). 

At the county level, Clark County, on the Lower Columbia River in 

Washington, recently implemented an unwanted medications take-back 

program that allows residents to drop off unwanted pharmaceuticals at 

participating pharmacies. The drugs are then incinerated at a licensed facility. 

Washington has implemented a pilot pharmaceutical take-back program in 

King County (through 2008) and plans to expand it to a statewide program. 

In Oregon, a proposal may be presented to the 2009 legislative session for a 

pharmaceutical take-back program. These partnerships between state and local 

governments, pharmacies, medical facilities, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Administration reduce pharmaceutical pollution in wastewater and unlined 

solid waste landfills which can contaminate groundwater and surface

waterways. 

36
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS

—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

Oregon and Nevada are Reducing Industrial 

Mercury Emissions 

A number of regulatory agencies in the Basin have recently introduced controls 

on industrial mercury discharges to the air. EPA expanded its Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements in 1999 to include mercury reporting 

for a variety of industries. The TRI data showed that some of the highest 

discharges of mercury in the country were in or bordering the Basin and that 

the single highest emitter of mercury was a cement plant in eastern Oregon. To 

reduce these emissions, ODEQ worked with the cement plant operators, who, 

through a 2008 mutual agreement and order, agreed to “...endeavor to meet 

a goal of 85% reduction in mercury emissions on a rolling 12-month average 

basis...”. The agreement also stipulates that if the goal is not met within a 

specified timeframe, plant operators will develop an action plan and implement

corrective actions in a further effort to achieve the 85 percent reduction. ODEQ 

will oversee these efforts to determine whether the cement plant “...exhaust[s] 

all reasonable alternatives...” to meet the goal. [7] 

Approximately a dozen mines in the Battle Mountain Mining District in 

northern Nevada produce 11 percent of the world’s gold and 74 percent of the 

nation’s gold. [8] TRI reporting showed that these gold mining operations were 

releasing a total of over 12,000 pounds of mercury per year. Between 2002 and 

2005, EPA and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection worked 

with four mining companies to set up a program of voluntary reductions 

for mercury emissions that resulted in an 82 percent decrease of mercury 

discharges to air at these mines. In March 2008, the State of Nevada enacted 

the nation’s first regulations limiting mercury air emissions from precious metal

mining operations. These regulations set limits on mercury emissions from all 

the mines in the Battle Mountain District. 

The only coal-fired power plant in the Columbia River Basin is located near the

Columbia River at Boardman. This plant discharges an average of 168 pounds 

of mercury to the atmosphere per year. [9] In December 2006, Oregon adopted 

regulations applicable to coal-fired power plants that require the Boardman

plant to control and reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2012 and cap 

state-wide mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2018. There

are also three coal-fired power plants near the boundary of the Basin (one in

Washington and two in Nevada) that could contribute some mercury load to the 

watershed, depending upon their emissions and prevailing wind patterns. 

Idaho Agencies and Kootenai Tribe are Monitoring 

Toxics in Fish, Water, and Air 

For several years, the State of Idaho has monitored rivers, lakes, and reservoirs 

for a number of toxics. In 2006, IDEQ sampled 15 large rivers for mercury in 

fish. In 2007, IDEQ sampled 50 lakes and reservoirs for arsenic, mercury, and

selenium in fish tissue. In 2008, an additional 34 large rivers were sampled for

arsenic, mercury, and selenium in both fish and water; the water samples were

also tested for methylmercury. 

IDEQ has also conducted or supported other local efforts, most notably in 

support of the Salmon Falls Creek mercury TMDL, submitted to EPA in 

December 2007 and approved in February 2008. The state’s air quality program 

has also been conducting some mercury deposition monitoring. 

Other noteworthy studies include the following: 

	 The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho has conducted studies of numerous 

contaminants in sturgeon, fish, water, sediment, and lower food web

organisms from the Kootenai River between 1999 and 2007. The tribe has 

also studied biomarkers in sturgeon for the effects of contaminants. 

	 The Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted studies of contaminants 

and biomarkers in Kootenai River adult and juvenile sturgeon in 1997 and 

1998. 

	 Idaho Power Company has conducted several studies of contaminants in the 

Snake River area along the Oregon-Idaho state line. 

37
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

6.0 TOxICS REDuCTION EFFORTS—CuRRENT AND PLANNED 

PCBs and Hydroelectric Facilities 

Historically, many pieces of electrical equipment used to generate power 

at dams in the Columbia River Basin used cooling and insulating oil that 

contained PCBs. In recent years, efforts have been made to reduce the presence 

of, and risk from, PCBs. These efforts include reducing or removing PCBs 

from electrical equipment; conducting operator self-assessments and EPA 

inspections; confirming that turbine oil does not contain PCBs; and reducing

the potential for PCB spills. EPA will continue to work with the operators of 

hydroelectric facilities to better understand the remaining risk of PCBs at dams. 

38
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

7.0 

Conclusions 

The Columbia River Basin is a unique and vibrant ecosystem that is at risk 

from toxic contaminants. Many challenges lie ahead to restore this ecosystem. 

This State of the River Report for Toxics is EPA Region 10’s first attempt to

understand and describe the current status and trends of toxics in this region 

of the United States. This report is intended to serve as a starting point for 

increasing public understanding about the impacts of toxics in the Basin and for 

finding ways to work in partnership with others to improve and expand current

toxics reduction efforts. Specifically, its primary purposes are to inform citizens

and decision-makers about the toxics problem and potential solutions; serve as 

a catalyst for increased citizen involvement and increased action; and inspire 

additional, more-efficient use of resources for increased toxics reduction and

assessment actions. 

While several monitoring studies are under way in the Basin to improve our 

understanding of the toxics problem, we must develop a more comprehensive 

and collaborative monitoring and research program. In addition, we must 

expand efforts to identify the sources of toxics in the Basin, characterize the 

types of contaminants, and quantify the contaminant load from these sources. 

We must also identify additional effective actions to reduce toxics and protect 

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

7.0 CONCLuSIONS 

the health of the Columbia River Basin ecosystem, and we must continue to 

implement those actions. 

This report focused on four contaminants: mercury, DDT and its breakdown 

products, PCBs, and PBDEs. However, we recognize that other toxics, 

including additional metals, dioxins, radionuclides, and pesticides as well as 

pharmaceuticals and personal care products, are also potential contaminants of 

concern. We know that these other contaminants need to be addressed in the 

future. 

Meanwhile, many groups are conducting pollution prevention and cleanup 

efforts to reduce toxics overall and to reduce toxics in water, sediment, plants, 

and animals in the Columbia River Basin. Despite limited resources, these 

groups are making significant strides in reducing toxics in certain areas, but

additional efforts need to be expanded throughout the Basin. The following 

Toxics Reduction Initiatives represent a first attempt at describing the next

steps in the effort to reduce toxics. We look forward to a future public dialogue 

throughout the Basin as we refine and implement these initiatives.

39
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

8.0 TOxICS REDuCTION INITIATIvES

8.0 

Toxics Reduction initiatives 

The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group has developed the 

following set of six Toxics Reduction Initiatives, which provide a broad 

overview of major actions needed to further reduce toxics in the Basin. A more 

in-depth and detailed work plan will be developed over the next year with 

stakeholder and public input. 

Initiative #1: Expand toxics reduction activities 

Federal, state, and local agencies have multiple regulatory mechanisms 

available to reduce toxics. Such mechanisms include TMDLs, NPDES permits, 

water quality standards, contaminated site cleanup, and programs to control 

pesticide usage. These programs need to be expanded. For example, additional 

toxics TMDLs and implementation plans are needed, and additional work is 

needed to identify other contaminated sites for cleanup. 

It is also important to promote voluntary/nonregulatory initiatives. States 

and tribes have worked to reduce toxics using a variety of voluntary and 

nonregulatory activities. They have focused much of their work on the 

tributaries to the Columbia River. Excellent examples of voluntary programs 

are Oregon’s Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships and the Pesticide Take Back 

Program. Support of local watershed groups in their efforts to complete toxics 

reduction projects should be continued. In addition, more partnerships should 

be developed with nongovernmental programs such as Salmon Safe and 

organizations such as Columbia Riverkeeper, other local nonprofit groups, and

area industries. 

Initiative #2: Identify, inventory, and characterize the sources of toxics in the 

Columbia River Basin 

There have been past efforts to identify and characterize sources of toxics 

in the Columbia River and its tributaries,[1] some of which are ongoing (e.g., 

Upper Columbia River, Hanford, and Portland Harbor investigations; Working 

Group efforts; and TMDL development in the Basin). However, additional 

information is needed to better identify, inventory, and characterize the sources 

of these toxics. This information will be used to prioritize reduction efforts and 

develop long-term monitoring and research plans. 

To fill in these critical information gaps, the Working Group has started to

identify important “next steps.” These steps include, but are not limited to, 

(1) identifying, inventorying, and mapping all potential sources of toxics, both 

within and outside the Basin; (2) determining the contaminants of concern 

from these sources; (3) collecting information on the concentrations of the 

contaminants of concern, where available; (4) determining the quantities of 

contaminants reaching the Columbia River and its tributaries, where possible; 

(5) evaluating the fate and transport of contaminants and their breakdown 

products from air and soil into the Columbia River and its tributaries; 

(6) determining the role of sediments as a source of contamination; and 

(7) prioritizing those sources where the greatest reduction efforts are needed 

and can be implemented. 

Initiative #3: Develop a regional, multi-agency long-term monitoring 

program 

There is no comprehensive, integrated monitoring plan for the Columbia River 

and its tributaries. This initiative will allow the Working Group to develop 

such a plan; ultimately, this plan would provide information on the locations 

and concentrations of toxics in the Basin, fill in data gaps in our scientific

knowledge, evaluate the impact of toxics on the ecosystem, and characterize 

the information on the status and trends of toxics in the Basin. With this 

information, the Working Group will be able to target limited resources and 

tailor the monitoring program to obtain data from areas that have not been 

previously monitored (such as the mid-Columbia River and the Snake River). 

Critical steps in the development of this monitoring plan include (1) completing 

a data gaps analysis of the Basin’s contaminant data collected from 1994 to 

the present; (2) determining the geographic extent of the areas to be sampled 

and identifying which contaminants would be monitored; (3) determining the 

types of media to be sampled (e.g., water, sediments, and/or fish tissue); and

(4) determining the frequency, specific locations, and techniques for sampling.

Because of limited resources, any monitoring program needs to be coordinated 

among the different federal, state, tribal, local, and nongovernmental entities to 

leverage resources and avoid duplication. 

40
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

8.0 TOxICS REDuCTION INITIATIvES 

Initiative #4: Develop a regional, multi-agency research program 

While research is being conducted by different agencies on toxics in the Basin, 

no coordinated effort has been made to identify the highest priorities for 

research. A collaborative plan will help the Working Group further understand 

the Basin’s contaminant problems and their relation to the food web, which will 

allow the Working Group to efficiently leverage resources among agencies.

It will also enable us to develop an integrated approach that focuses on issues 

specific to the Columbia River Basin (for example, PBDE concentrations in

osprey eggs) that can be addressed by scientists within the region (NOAA 

Fisheries, EPA Corvallis Laboratory, USGS Science Center, and others). 

Initiative #5: Develop a data management system that will allow us to share 

information on toxics in the Basin 

The ability to access information is critical to effectively evaluating toxics 

information. It is also necessary when prioritizing which reduction activities 

will provide the most benefits. Currently, no single database contains all of the

data from monitoring efforts within the Basin. In addition, some of the data are 

not publicly accessible or are often available only in hard copy records. Some 

records are of unknown quality, and most are in differing formats. 

While a single database would be useful, its development would be very 

expensive and would require dedicated resources to operate and maintain. 

As an alternative to a single database, the Working Group will explore the 

possibility of working with existing efforts such as the Northwest Data 

Exchange Network and the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership.

Initiative #6: Increase public education about the toxics problems and 

resource needs 

Public support and concern related to toxics and their impact on human health 

and the environment are growing. Furthermore, there is a base of support in 

the Basin among citizens, watershed groups, and other stakeholders associated 

with local, state, tribal, and federal governments. Many of these groups are 

interested in working together to better understand and reduce toxics in the 

Columbia River Basin, with the goal of moving toward a Basin ecosystem that 

is healthier for all. 

It will be important to educate the public further about the Columbia River 

Basin toxics problem, current efforts, and the need for increased action and 

resources to reduce toxics. The Working Group intends to work closely 

with the partners of the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group 

and with Basin stakeholders to coordinate outreach to the public (including 

schools, business/industry groups, nonprofit organizations, farm associations,

and watershed councils). Outreach efforts will include (1) holding public 

workshops and other public events throughout the Basin; (2) using multi-media 

tools, including websites, postcards, and posters, to educate and inform Basin 

residents about toxics; and (3) encouraging public participation in Columbia 

River toxics reduction activities. 

41
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

9.0 A PATH FORWARD

9.0 

a path forward 

To a great extent, success will depend on a commitment to join forces to 

make the best use of available resources. This approach will require strong 

communication and collaboration among Basin agencies, organizations, and 

the public. We recognize that the citizens of the Northwest place a high value 

on a healthy Columbia River Basin ecosystem. Therefore, we plan to reach out 

to those who live, work, and play in the Basin; share information on risks to 

the Basin posed by toxics; and solicit help in restoring the Basin’s magnificent

ecosystem. 

In 2009, the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group will develop a 

draft work plan that will build on the successful and numerous toxics reduction 

efforts already accomplished or under way and will also identify new efforts to 

reduce toxics in the Basin. We will do this by hosting a number of watershedbased workshops in the Basin. The outcome of these workshops should be 

a toxics reduction work plan for the Columbia River Basin that will involve 

citizens; local watershed councils; Basin communities; other entities; and 

tribal, federal, and state governments in a collaborative partnership. 

Columbia River Toxics Reduction Work Plan and Watershed Workshops 

Late Winter – Early Spring 2009: The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group develops draft toxics reduction work plan. 

Late Spring – Summer 2009: Watershed workshops are held for Basin residents, local watershed councils and communities, tribal governments, and the 

general public to learn about, and contribute to, the draft work plan. Actions are initiated to evaluate the extent of toxic contamination in the Basin and reduce 

impacts. 

Fall – Winter 2009: The Working Group finalizes a collaborative, watershed-based work plan that focuses efforts on implementation.

vISIT THE WEB more detailed information, including expanded data and reports, can be found by visiting epa’s 

Columbia River website: http://www.epa.gov/region10/columbia. 

42
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

10.0 

References 

Section 2.0: Introduction 

1.	 NPCC (2007), “Human Population Impacts on Columbia River Basin Fish 

and Wildlife,” ISAB 2007-3, June. 

2	 Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission (1979), Water—Today and 

Tomorrow, Vancouver, Washington. 

3.	 NPCC (2000), Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Council 

Document 2000-19. 

4.	 BPA, USACE, USBR (2001), The Columbia River System: Inside Story, 

Federal Columbia River Power System, DOE/BP-3372, second edition, 

April. 

5.	 EPA (2006), 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Charting Our Course, EPA 

190-R-06-001. 

6.	 EPA (1992), National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, EPA 823-R-92-

008a. 

7.	 CRITFC (1994), A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, 

Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin, Technical 

report 94-3, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, 

Oregon. 

8.	 EPA (2002), Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey, 1996-1998, 

EPA 910-R-02-006. 

Section 3.0: Toxic Contaminants 

1.	 Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group (2007), Contaminants 

Subgroup, “Contaminants of Concern.” 

2.	 Washington Toxics Coalition (2006), Pollution in People: A Study of Toxic 

Chemicals in Washingtonians, A Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition Report, 

May. 

3.	 Oregon Environmental Council and the Oregon Collaborative for Health 

and the Environment (2007), Pollution in People: A Study of Toxic 

Chemical in Oregonians, November. 

4.	 Nilsen, E.B., R.R. Rosenbauer, E.T. Furlong, M.R. Burkhardt, S.L. 

Werner, L. Greaser, and M. Noriega (2007), “Pharmaceuticals, personal 

care products and anthropogenic waste indicators detected in streambed 

sediments of the Lower Columbia River and selected tributaries,” in 6th 

International Conference on Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting 

Chemicals in Water, National Ground Water Association, Costa Mesa, CA; 

Paper 4483, p 15. 

5.	 Buelow, L. (2008), EPA, personal communication, June 2008 e-mail. 

6.	 EPA (1987), National Dioxin Study, Report to Congress, EPA Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-025, Washington, 

D.C., August. 

7.	 EPA (1992), National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, EPA 823-R-92-

008a. 

8.	 Seiders, K. (2007), Washington State Toxics Monitoring Program: 

Contaminants in Fish Tissue from Freshwater Environments 2004 - 2005, 

ECY publication #02-03-65 at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703024. 

html, Washington Department of Ecology. 

9.	 EVS Consultants for EPA (1998), Assessment of Dioxins Furans and 

PCBs in Fish Tissue from Lake Roosevelt Data from Washington Ecology 

EIM, http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/eimreporting/Search.asp. 

10. Henny, C., R.A. Grove, and J.L. Kaiser (2008), “Osprey distribution, 

abundance, reproductive success and contaminant burdens along 

the Lower Columbia River, 1997/1998 versus 2004”, in Archives of 

Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 54:525-534. 

Section 4.0: Indicators 

1.	 Loge, F.J., M.R. Arkoosh, T.R. Ginn, L.L. Johnson, and T.K. Collier 

(2005), “Impact of environmental stressors on dynamics of disease 

transmission,” in Environmental Science and Technology, 39:7329–7336. 

2.	 Mallatt, J., M.G. Barron, and C. McDonough (1986), “Acute toxicity of 

methyl mercury to the larval lamprey, Petromyzon marinus,” in Bulletin of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 37:281-288. 

3.	 Haas, J.E. and G. Ichikawa (2007), “Mercury bioaccumulation in Pacific

Lamprey Ammocoetes: the roles life history plays,” U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.

(poster). 

10.0 REFERENCES

43
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

10.0 REFERENCES

Section 5.0: Status and Trends for Mercury, DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs 

Mercury 

1.	 Lorraine Edmond, EPA Region 10, compilation of data from GIS analysis 

of modeling results documented in ICF 2008, cited below. 

2.	 Dwight Atkinson, EPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C., personal

communication based on GIS analysis of modeling results documented in 

ICF 2008, cited below. 

3.	 ICF International (2008), Model-Based Analysis and Tracking of Airborne 

Mercury Emissions to Assist in Watershed Planning, prepared for EPA 

Office of Water, Washington, D.C., final report August 5, 2008, 350 p.

4.	 Dwight Atkinson (2008), “Mercury Deposition Modeling for States & 

Tribes in Regions 8, 9, and 10,” Power Point presentation, August 2008. 

5.	 Columbia Riverkeeper (2008), “Columbia River Toxic Discharges 

Assessment and Mixing Zone Mapping,” draft report, based on data 

reported to Washington Department of Ecology and Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

6.	 Environment Canada National Pollutant Release Inventory database, data 

for Teck Cominco smelter at Trail, British Columbia, available online at 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_home_e.cfm. 

7.	 ODEQ (2004), Willamette Basin Mercury Study. Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality, Laboratory Division, Portland, Oregon. 

8.	 Oregon Department of Human Services, 1997, Elevated Levels of Mercury 

in Sport-Caught Bass and Squawfish from the Willamette River, issued 

February 13, 1996. 

9.	 Henny, C., R.A. Grove, and J.L. Kaiser (2008), “Osprey distribution, 

abundance, reproductive success and contaminant burdens along 

the Lower Columbia River, 1997/1998 versus 2004” in Archives of 

Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 54:525-534. 

10. Henny, C.J., J.L Kaiser, and R.A. Grove (2008), “PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs, 

OC pesticides and mercury in fish and osprey eggs from Willamette

River, Oregon (1993, 2001 and 2006) with calculated biomagnifications

factors.” in Ecotoxicology, http://www.springerlink.com/content/ 

k63kx77k8117p1x3/fulltext.html. 

11. Kruse, G.O., and D.L. Scarnecchia (2002), “Assessment of 

bioaccumulated metal and organochlorine compounds in relation to 

physiological biomarkers in Kootenai River white sturgeon,” in Journal of 

Applied Ichthyology, 18:430-438. 

12. Kruse, G.O., and D.L. Scarnecchia (2002), “Contaminant uptake and 

survival of white sturgeon embryos,” presented at the American Fisheries 

Society Symposium, 28:151-160. 

13. CRITFC (1994), A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, 

Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin, technical 

report 94-3, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, 

Oregon. 

14. Lepla, K.B., and J.A. Chandler (1994), revised edition March 1998, A 

Survey of White Sturgeon in the Bliss Reach of the Middle Snake River, 

Idaho, report prepared for Idaho Power Company, Technical Report FERC 

No. 1975. 

15. Kruse, G.O., and M.H. Webb (2006), Upper Columbia River White 

Sturgeon Contaminant and Deformity Evaluation and Summary, report 

prepared for the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon Recovery Team 

Contaminants Sub-Committee to the Upper Columbia River White 

Sturgeon Recovery Team, http://uppercolumbiasturgeon.org/Research/ 

Research.html. 

16. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, J. Yates, and 

J.M. Spitsbergen (2001), “Plasma androgen correlation, EROD induction, 

reduced condition factor, and the occurrence of organochlorine pollutants 

in reproductively immature white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) 

from the Columbia River, U.S.A,” in Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology, 41:182-191. 

17. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, and J. Yates 

(2001), “Gonad organochlorine concentrations and plasma steroid levels 

in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) from the Columbia River, 

U.S.A.,” in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 

67:239-245. 

18. Feist, G.W., M.A.H. Webb, D.T. Gunderson, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck, 

A.G. Maule, and M.S. Fitzpatrick (2005), “Evidence of detrimental effects 

44
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

10.0 REFERENCES

of environmental contaminants on growth and reproductive physiology 

of white sturgeon in impounded areas of the Columbia River,” in 

Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 12. 

19. Webb, M.A.H., G.W. Feist, M.S. Fitzpatrick, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck, 

M. Plumlee, C. Wong, and D.T. Gunderson (2005), “Mercury 

concentrations in gonad, liver and muscle tissue of white sturgeon 

(Acipenser transmontanus) in the Columbia River,” in Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 50:443-451. 

20. Hill, S. (1975), “Study of mercury and heavy metals pollution in the 

Jordan Creek drainage,” grant number Gy/10816, Student-Originated 

Studies, National Science Foundation, College of Mines, University of 

Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

21. Rinella, F.A., W.H. Mullins, and C.A. Schuler (1994), Reconnaissance 

Investigation of Water Quality, Bottom Sediment, and Biota Associated 

with Irrigation Drainage in the Owyhee and Vale Projects, Oregon and 

Idaho, 1990-91, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 93 4156. 

22. EPA (2003), “National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue - 

1999 to 2003,” http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/study/. 

23. Seiders, K., C. Deligeannis, and P. Sandvik (2007), Washington 

Department of Ecology, Washington State Toxics Monitoring Program: 

Contaminants in Fish Tissue from Freshwater Environments 2004 and 

2005, Publication No. 07-03-024; June. 

24.	 Stone, H. (2006), “Brownlee Reservoir mercury TMDL fish tissue study:

results and field summary,” Idaho Department of Environmental Quality,

June. 

25. Clark, G.M., and T.R. Maret (1998), Organochlorine Compounds and 

Trace Elements in Fish Tissue and Bed Sediments in the Lower Snake 

River Basin, Idaho and Oregon, USGS Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98-4103. 

26. Data shared by T.R. Maret, USGS trmaret@usgs.gov, 2004-2007 data 

collection. 

27. EPA (2002), Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey, 1996-1998. 

EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA 910/R-02-006, July. 

28. Large Rivers Idaho Frame EMAP sampling (2006), (unpublished). 

29. Idaho Fish Consumption Advisory Program Data, J. Vannoy, Idaho 

Department of Health, VannoyJ@dhw.idaho.gov. 

DDT 

1.	 Fuhrer, G.J., J. Morace, H.M. Johnson, J. Rinella, J.C. Ebbert, S.S. 

Embrey, I.R. Waite, K.D. Carpenter, D.R. Wise, and C.A. Hughes (2004), 

“Water Quality in the Yakima River Basin, Washington 1999-2000,” 

USGS Circular 1237. 

2.	 USGS Circular 1090, USGS WRIR 98-4113. 

3.	 EPA (1992), National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, EPA 823-R-92-

008a. 

4.	 Johnson, A., B. Era-Miller, and R. Coots (2007), Chlorinated Pesticides, 

PCBs, and Dioxins in Yakima River Fish in 2006: Data Summary and 

Comparison to Human Health Criteria, Washington Department of 

Ecology, Publication No. 07-03-036, July. 

5.	 EPA (2002), Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey, 1996-1998, 

EPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington, EPA 910/R-02-006, July. 

6.	 Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, J. Yates, and 

J.M. Spitsbergen (2001), “Plasma androgen correlation, EROD induction, 

reduced condition factor, and the occurrence of organochlorine pollutants 

in reproductively immature white sturgeon (Acipenser Transmontanus) 

from the Columbia River, U.S.A.,” in Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology, 41, 182-191. 

7.	 Feist, G.W., M.A.H. Webb, D.T. Gunderson, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck, 

A.G. Maule, and M.S. Fitzpatrick (2005), “Evidence of detrimental effects 

of environmental contaminants on growth and reproductive physiology 

of white sturgeon in impounded areas of the Columbia River,” in 

Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol.113, No. 12. 

8.	 Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, J. Yates, 

J.M. Spitsbergen, and J. Heidel (2001), “Altered reproductive physiology, 

EROD induction, reduced condition factor, and the occurrence of 

organochlorine pollutants in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) 

from the Columbia River,” in Archives of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology, 41(2):182-191. 

45
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

10.0 REFERENCES

9.	 Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, and J. Yates 

(2001), “Gonad organochlorine concentrations and plasma sex steroid 

levels in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) from the Columbia 

River, USA.,” in Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 67:239-245. 

10. Foster, E.P., M.S. Fitzpatrick, G.W. Feist, C.B. Schreck, J. Yates, 

J.M. Spitsbergen, and J.R. Heidel (2001), “Plasma androgen correlation, 

EROD induction, reduced condition factor, and the occurrence of 

organochlorine pollutants in reproductively immature white sturgeon 

(Acipenser transmontanus) from the Columbia River, USA.,” in Archives 

of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 41(2):182-91. 

11. Lepla, K.B., and J.A. Chandler (1994), revised edition March 1998, A 

Survey of White Sturgeon in the Bliss Reach of the Middle Snake River, 

Idaho, report prepared for Idaho Power Company, Technical Report FERC 

No. 1975. 

12. Kruse, G.O., and M.H. Webb (2006), Upper Columbia River White 

Sturgeon Contaminant and Deformity Evaluation and Summary, report 

prepared for the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon Recovery Team 

Contaminants Sub-Committee to the Upper Columbia River White 

Sturgeon Recovery Team, http://uppercolumbiasturgeon.org/Research/ 

Research.html. 

13. Kruse, G.O., and D.L. Scarnecchia (2002), “Assessment of 

bioaccumulated metal and organochlorine compounds in relation to 

physiological biomarkers in Kootenai River white sturgeon,” in Journal of 

Applied Ichthyology, 18:430-438. 

14. Anthony, R.G., M.G. Garrett, and C.A. Schuler (1993), “Environmental 

contaminants in bald eagles in the Columbia River estuary,” in Journal of 

Wildlife Management, 57(1): 10-19. 

15. Buck, J.A., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs (1999), Changes in Productivity 

and Environmental Contaminants in Bald Eagles Nesting Along the Lower 

Columbia River, USFWS and Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 

Study ID 13420-1130-1F16. 

16. Buck, J.A., R.G. Anthony, C.A. Schuler, F.B. Isaacs, and D.E. Tillitt 

(2005), “Changes in productivity and contaminants in bald eagles nesting 

along the Lower Columbia River, USA.,” in Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 1779-1792. 

17. Gabrielson, I.N., and S.G. Jewett (1940), Birds of Oregon, Oregon State 

College Press, Corvallis. 

18. Henny, C.J., J.A. Collins, and W.J. Deibert (1978), “Osprey distribution, 

abundance, and status in western North America: II. the Oregon 

population,” The Murrelet, 59:14-25. 

19. Henny, C.J., J.L. Kaiser, and R.A. Grove (2005), “Ospreys in Oregon and 

the Pacific Northwest,” USGS Fact Sheet 153-02 (revised), 4 pp., http:// 

fresc.usgs.gov/products/fs/fs-153-02.pdf. 

20. Henny, C.J., R.A. Grove, and J.L. Kaiser (2008), “Osprey distribution, 

abundance, reproductive success and contaminant burdens along 

the Lower Columbia River, 1997/1998 versus 2004,” in Archives of 

Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 54:525-534. 

21. Isaacs, F. (2002), “25-Year Study Shows Oregon Bald Eagles Doing 

Well,” unpublished data, OSU, http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/ 

newsarch/2002/Dec02/eagles.htm. 

PCBs 

1.	 Johnson, A., D. Serdar, and D. Davis (1994), “Results of 1993 Screening 

Survey on PCBs and Metals in the Spokane River, April 1994,” in 

Washington Department of Ecology Publication No. 94-e24 : July 11, 

1994 memo to Carl Nuechterlein from Dale Davis and Dave Serdar with 

corrections. 

2.	 Serdar, D., and A. Johnson (2006), “PCBs, PBDEs and selected metals in 

Spokane River fish, 2005,” Ecology Publication 06-03-025.

3.	 Johnson, A. (1996), “Results on PCBs in Upper Spokane River Fish, 

Washington Department of Ecology memo to Carl Neuchterlein and 

Dave Knight,” in Washington DOE Publication 97-304, July 8, 1997. 

4.	 Johnson, A., (2000), “Results from Analyzing PCBs in 1999 Spokane 

River Fish and Crayfish Samples, September,” in Washington Department

of Ecology Publication No. 00-03-040. 

46
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

10.0 REFERENCES

5.	 Seiders, K., C. Deligeannis, and K. Kinney (2006), “Washington State 

Toxics Monitoring Program: Toxic Contaminants in Fish Tissue and 

Surface Water from Freshwater Environments, 2003,” in Washington State 

Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-03-019. 

6.	 Feist, G.W., M.A.H. Webb, D.T. Gunderson, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck, 

A.G. Maule, and M.S. Fitzpatrick (2005), “Evidence of detrimental effects 

of environmental contaminants on growth and reproductive physiology 

of white sturgeon in impounded areas of the Columbia River,” in 

Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol.113 No. 12. 

7.	 LCREP (Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership) (2007), Lower 

Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring: Water Quality and 

Salmon Sampling Report, prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary 

Partnership, Portland, Oregon. 

8.	 Johnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, C.A. Sloan, B.F. Anulacion, A.N. Kagley, 

M.R. Arkoosh, R.A. Lundrigan, K. Larson, M. Siipola, and T.K. Collier 

(2007), “Persistent organic pollutants in outmigrant juvenile chinook 

salmon from the Lower Columbia Estuary, USA,” in Science of the Total 

Environment, 374:342-366. 

9.	 Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein (2002), “Use of tissue and 

sediment-based threshold concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs) to protect juvenile salmonids listed under the US Endangered 

Species Act,” in Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12: 493–516 

(2002). 

10. Johnson, A., and D. Norton (2005), Concentrations of 303(d) Listed 

Pesticides, PCBs and PAHs, Measured with Passive Samplers Deployed 

in the Lower Columbia River, Washington Department of Ecology, 

Publication No. 05-03-006. 

11. Henny, C.J., R.A. Grove, and O.P. Hedstrom (1996), Field evaluation of 

mink and river otter on the Lower Columbia River and the influence of 

environmental contaminants, final report submitted to the Lower Columbia

River Bi-State Water Quality Program, http://www.lcrep.org/pdfs/44.%20 

01538.pdf. 

12. Henny, C.J., L.J. Blus, S.V. Gregory, and C.J. Stafford (1981), “PCBs and 

organochlorine pesticides in wild mink and river otters from Oregon,” in 

Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference 3:1763-780. 

13. Elliott et al. (1998), “Chlorinated hydrocarbons in livers of American mink 

(Mustela vison) and river otter (Lontra canadensis) from the Columbia 

and Fraser River Basins, 1990-1992,” in Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment, 57: 229-252. 

14. Grove, R.A., and C.J. Henny (2007), “Environmental contaminants in 

male river otters from Oregon and Washington, USA, 1994-1999,” in 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 145:49-73. 

15. Buck, J.A., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs (1999), “Changes in 

productivity and environmental contaminants in bald eagles nesting along 

the Lower Columbia River,” USFWS and Oregon Cooperative Wildlife 

Research Unit. Study ID 13420-1130-1F16. 

16. Buck, J.A., R.G. Anthony, C.A. Schuler, F.B. Isaacs, and D.E. Tillitt 

(2005), “Changes in productivity and contaminants in bald eagles nesting 

along the Lower Columbia River, USA.,” in Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 1779-1792. 

17. Henny, C.J., R.A. Grove, and J.L. Kaiser (2008), “Osprey distribution, 

abundance, reproductive success and contaminant burdens along 

the Lower Columbia River, 1997/1998 versus 2004”, in Archives of 

Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 54:525-534. 

18. Siipola, M., T. Sherman, R. Abney, D. Ebner, J. Stevens, J. Clarke, 

and G. Ray (2007), “Corbicula fluminea: a potential freshwater 

bioaccumulative test species,” USACE Portland District and the Engineer 

Research Development Center (poster). 

PBDEs 

1.	 Samara, F., C. W. Tsai, D. S. Aga (2006) “Determination of potential 

sources of PCBs and PBDEs in sediments of the Niagara River”, in 

Environmental Pollution 139:3 489-497. 

47
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

10.0 REFERENCES

2.	 Hale, R.C., M.J. La Guardia, E.P. Harvey, T.M. Mainor, W.H. Duff, and 

M.O. Gaylor, (2001), “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers flame retardants

in Virginia Freshwater Fishes (USA),” in Environmental Science and 

Technology, 35, 23:4585 – 4591. 

3.	 North, K.D., “Tracking Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE) Releases 

in a Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent, Palo Alto, California, USA”

Karin.North@cityofpaloalto.org. 

4.	 Song, M., C. Shaogang, J. Letcher, and R. Seth (2006), “Fate, partitioning 

and mass loading of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) during the 

treatment processing of municipal waste,” in Environmental Science and 

Technology, 40:6241-6246. 

5.	 Hale, R.C., M. Alaee, J.B. Manchester-Neesvig, H.M. Stapleton, and 

M.G. Ikonomou (2003), “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers flame retardants

in the North American environment,” in Environmental International, 

29:771–779. 

6.	 Watanabe, I., and S. Sakai (2003), “Environmental release and behavior of 

brominated flame retardants,” in Environmental International, 29:665-682. 

7.	 Rayne, S., M.G. Ikonomou, and B. Antcliffe (2003), “Rapidly increasing 

brominated diphenyl ethers concentrations in the Columbia River System 

from 1992 to 2000,” in Environmental Science and Technology, 37(13): 

2847-2854. 

8.	 Serdar, D., and A. Johnson (2006), PCBs, PBDEs and Selected Metals in 

Spokane River Fish, 2005, Ecology Publication 06-03-025. 

9.	 Johnson, A., K. Seiders, C. Deligeannis, K. Kinney, P. Sandvik, 

B. Era-Miller, and D. Alkire (2006), PBDE Flame Retardants in 

Washington Rivers and Lakes: Concentrations in Fish and Water, 2005-06, 

Washington Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-03-027, August, 

Olympia, Washington. 

10. Johnson, A., and N. Olson, (2001), “Analysis and Occurrence of 

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Washington State Freshwater Fish,” 

in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 41:339-344, 

April. 

11. LCREP (2007), Lower Columbia River and Estuary Ecosystem 

Monitoring: Water Quality and Salmon Sampling Report, 70 p. Lower 

Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Portland, Oregon. 

12. Siipola, M., T. Sherman, R. Abney, D. Ebner, J. Stevens, J. Clarke, 

and G. Ray (2007), “Corbicula fluminea: a potential freshwater 

bioaccumulative test species,” USACE Portland District and the Engineer 

Research Development Center (poster). 

Section 6.0: Current and Planned Toxics Reduction Efforts 

1.	 ODEQ (2008), Human Health Focus Group Report: Oregon Fish and 

Shellfish Consumption Rate Project, June. 

2.	 EPA Region 8 website, http://epa.gov\region8\superfund\mt\milltowncfr. 

3.	 Henny, C.J., R.A. Grove, J.L. Kaiser, and V.R. Bentley (2004), “An 

evaluation of Osprey eggs to determine spatial residue patterns and effects 

of contaminants along the lower Columbia River, USA”, pp. 369-388, in 

Raptors Worldwide, R.D. Chancellor and B.-U. Meyburg, eds., WWGBP 

and MME, Budapest, Hungary. 

4.	 Fuhrer, G.J., J. Morace, H.M. Johnson, J. Rinella, J.C. Ebbert, S.S. Embrey, 

I.R. Waite, K.D. Carpenter, D.R. Wise, and C. A. Hughes (2004), “Water 

Quality in the Yakima River Basin, Washington 1999-2000,” USGS 

Circular 1237. 

5.	 Walla Walla Pesticide Stewardship Partnership (2008), Summary 

Report: Pesticide Monitoring in the Walla Walla Basin 2005-2007 

Results, Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality, September 2007, or http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/ 

pubs/factsheets/community/pesticide.pdf. 

6.	 Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Disposal Program, http:// 

www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/Pesticides/pdp/indexdisposalmain.php. 

7.	 ODEQ (2008), Environmental Quality Commission, Mutual Agreement 

and Order, July 17, 2008, DEQ no. AQ/V-ER-08-022. 

8.	 USGS (2007), http://minerals.usgs.gov/west/projects/nngd.htm. 

48
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

10.0 REFERENCES

9.	 Portland General Electric average of 2000-2006 emissions reported for the 

Boardman, Oregon, plant. 

Section 8.0: Toxics Reduction Initiatives 

1.	 ODEQ (1996), Identification of Sources of Pollutants to the Lower 

Columbia River Basin, prepared by the Lower Columbia River Bi-State 

Water Quality Program, T. Rosetta and D. Borys, June. 

49
Columbia RiveR basin: sTaTe of The RiveR RepoRT foR ToxiCs JanuaRY 2009 

Photograph Provided By Darwin Durek 

50
51

Photograph Provided By Ed Deery 
52

Photograph Provided By Laura Gephart 
53
54

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35

SCIENCE

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper

with a minumum 50% post-consumer

fiber using vegetable-based ink

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Region 10