# Yakima River Pesticides and PCBs Total Maximum Daily Load

Volume 1. Water Quality Study Findings

April 2010 Publication No. 10-03-018

## Publication and Contact Information

This report is available on the De partment of Ecology’s website at www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1003018.html

For more information contact:

Publications Coordinator Environmental Assessment Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6764

Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov/

o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000

o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000

o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300

o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490

o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400



## Project Codes

Data for this project are avai lable at Ecology’s Environmental Information Management (EIM) website www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/index.htm . Search User Study ID AJO H0055

. Ecology’s Activity Tracker Code for this study is 07-078-02.

TMDL Study Code (Water Quality Program) is YakR99TX.

Cover photo: Upper Yakima River near Thorp (Jane Creech)

Any use of product or firm names in this publ ication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the au thor or the Department of Ecology.

To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call 360-407-6764. 

### Persons with hearing loss can call 7 11 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341.

# Yakima River Pesticides and PCBs Total Maximum Daily Load

Volume 1. Water Quality Study Findings

by Art Johnson, Kristin Carmack Brandee Era-Miller

Brandi Lubliner

Steve Golding Randy Coots

Environmental Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504-7710

Waterbody Numbers Upper Yakima River (39-1010, 39- 1030, 39-1060, 39-1070) and tributaries Lower Yakima River (37-1010, 37-1020, 37-1040) and tributaries Naches River (38-1010, 38-1030, 38-1040) and tributariesThis page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page i 

# Table of Contents

Page List of Figures ......................................................................................................................v List of Tables ................................................................................................................ ..... ix Abstract ...................................................................................................................... ...... xiii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... xiv Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................xv Total Maximum Daily Loads .......................................................................................xv Watershed Description .................................................................................................xv Yakima River 303(d) Listings .................................................................................. xvii Existing TMDLs ...................................................................................................... xviii 2006 Fish Tissue Survey ............................................................................................ xix 2007-08 Water Quality Study ......................................................................................xx Water Quality Study Findings ................................................................................... xxi Pollutants for Which a TMDL or Other Po llution Control Plan is Needed ............. xxiii Numeric TMDL Targets and Loading Capacity ...................................................... xxiv Recommendations .................................................................................................... xxiv What is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)? ...............................................................1 Federal Clean Water Act Requirements ........................................................................1 TMDL Process Overview ..............................................................................................1 Elements Required in a TMDL ......................................................................................2 Why is Ecology Conducting a TMDL Study in This Watershed? ......................................3 Overview ...................................................................................................................... ..3 Study Area .....................................................................................................................4 Yakima Basin Waterbodies on Ecology’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters ..................5 Pollutants Addressed by This TMDL ............................................................................7 Water Quality Standards ......................................................................................................9 Designated Uses .............................................................................................................9 Toxics ........................................................................................................................ .....9 Aquatic Life .........................................................................................................10 Human Health ......................................................................................................10 Turbidity ..................................................................................................................... .11 Watershed Description .......................................................................................................13 Yakima River Basin .....................................................................................................13 Yakama Nation ............................................................................................................15 Streamflow and the Irrigation System .........................................................................15 Previous Water Quality Studies ...................................................................................19 Existing Yakima River TMDLs .........................................................................................21 Lower Yakima River Suspende d Sediment and DDT TMDL .....................................21 Upper Yakima River Suspended Sediment and Organochlorine Pesticide TMDL .....22 2006 Yakima River Fish Tissue Survey ............................................................................23

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page ii Goals and Objectives of the 2007-08 Water Quality Study ..............................................27 Goals ......................................................................................................................... ...27 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 27 Study Design ......................................................................................................................29 Surface Water ...............................................................................................................31 Pesticides, Suspended Sediment, and Turbidity ..................................................31 PCBs and Toxaphene ..........................................................................................36 Permitted Disc harges ...................................................................................................41 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants .............................................................41 Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors ..............................................................44 Urban Stormwater Runoff ...................................................................................45 Number of Samples......................................................................................................49 Other Sources of Contamination ..................................................................................49 Field Procedures .................................................................................................................51 Surface Water ...............................................................................................................51 Routine Monitoring and Screening Survey .........................................................51 Semipermeable Membrane Devices ....................................................................52 Wastewater Treatment Plants ......................................................................................52 Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors ......................................................................53 Stormwater ...................................................................................................................5 3 Laboratory Methods ...........................................................................................................5 4 Data Quality Assessment ...................................................................................................55 Data Review and Verification ......................................................................................55 Field Blanks .................................................................................................................56 Replicate Samples ........................................................................................................56 Results of the 2007-08 Water Quality Study .....................................................................59 Water Supply ...............................................................................................................59 Surface Water Quality ..................................................................................................61 Pesticides .............................................................................................................61 PCBs and Toxaphene ........................................................................................102 Suspended Sediment ..........................................................................................108 Turbidity ............................................................................................................116 Permitted Discharges .................................................................................................128 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants ...........................................................128 Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors ............................................................135 Urban Stormwater Runoff .................................................................................139 Point and Nonpoint Sources Compared .....................................................................148 Status of 303(d) Listed Chemicals and Toxaphene in the Yakima River ........................154 Pollutants for which a TMDL or Other Control Plan is Needed ....................................157 PCBs, Dioxin, Chlorpyrifos, and Chlordane ...................................................................159 PCBs .......................................................................................................................... 159 Dioxin ........................................................................................................................ 159 Chlorpyrifos ...............................................................................................................160 Chlordane ...................................................................................................................16 1

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page iii Pollutants Not Exceeding Standards ................................................................................162 Numeric TMDL Targets ..................................................................................................163 Pesticide and PCB Targets .........................................................................................163 Suspended Sediment and Turbidity Targets ..............................................................163 Loading Capacity .............................................................................................................173 Pollutant Reductions Needed ...........................................................................................177 Turbidity ....................................................................................................................1 77 Pesticides and PCBs ...................................................................................................177 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... ...179 Recommendations ............................................................................................................181 303(d) Listings/TMDL...............................................................................................181 Source Tracing ...........................................................................................................181 Monitoring .................................................................................................................181 References .................................................................................................................... ....183 Appendices .................................................................................................................... ...191 Appendix A. Yakima Basin 303(d) Listings Based on Edib le Fish Tissue Samples (2008 list) ...................................................................................................................193 Appendix B. Yakima Basin 303(d) Listin gs Based on Water Samples (2008 list) ..195 Appendix C. Use Designations for WRIA 37- Lower Yakima River, WRIA 38-Naches River, and WR IA 39-Upper Yakima River .................................197 Appendix D. 2006 Fish Tissue Data .........................................................................205 Appendix E. Pesticides Analyzed in Su rface Water and in Effluents from Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors du ring the 2007-08 Yakima River Water Quality Study .............................................................................................................215 Appendix F. Deployment Dates and PRC Recovery for SPMDs .............................217 Appendix G. Ancillary Water Qual ity Data for SPMD Deployments ......................219 Appendix H. SPMD Calculations .............................................................................223 Appendix I. Pesticides Analyzed in Wa stewater Treatment Plant Effluents and Urban Stormwater Runoff during the 2007-08 Yakima River Water Quality Study 224 Appendix J. Routine Monitoring Data for Surface Water, 2007-08 .........................225 Appendix K. Screening Survey Data for Surface Water, 2007-08 ...........................261 Appendix L. Washington State Departme nt of Health Fish Consumption Advisory .....................................................................................................................2 85 Appendix M. SPMD Data, 2007-08 .........................................................................287 Appendix N. Wastewater Treatmen t Plant Effluent Data, 2007-08 .........................289 Appendix O. Fruit Packer and Vegetable Processor Effluent Data, 2007-08 ...........301 Appendix P. Stormwater Data, 2007-08 ...................................................................307 Appendix Q. Values of Potential Use fo r Calculating Stormwater Loads to the Yakima River from Sunnyside and Ri chland (using the Simple Method) ................321 Appendix R. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations .............................................323

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page iv This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page v 

# List of Figures

Page Figure 1. Water Resource I nventory Areas for Yakima River Pesticides and PCBs TMDL. ......................................................................................................................... ........4 Figure 2. Yakima River Basin. .........................................................................................14 Figure 3. Monthly Average Flow in the Ya kima River, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Granger Drain. .............................................................................................................16 Figure 4. Relative Position of Selected Tri butaries, Diversions, Irrigation Returns, and Other Features on the Yakima River. ..........................................................................17 Figure 5. Mean DDE Concentrations in Yaki ma River Fish Fillets Collected in 2006 ....25 Figure 6. Mean Total PCB Concentrations in Yakima River Fish Fillets Collected in 2006

. .............................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 7. Routine Monitoring Stations in the Lower Yakima River for 2007-08. ...........32 Figure 8. Lower Yakima River Tributarie s and Irrigation Retu rns Screened for Pesticides during 2007-08. .................................................................................................34 Figure 9. SPMD Membrane Mounted on a Spider Carrier. ..............................................36 Figure 10. Sites Where SPMDs Were De ployed in the Upper Yakima River during 2007. .......................................................................................................................38 Figure 11. Sites Where SPMDs Were De ployed in the Lower Yakima River during 2007. .......................................................................................................................39 Figure 12. Monthly Average Flow near Selected SPMD Sites during 2007. ...................40 Figure 13. Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Lowe r Yakima River Basin. ..................43 Figure 14. Fruit Packers and Vegetable Proc essors Monitored in the Lower Yakima River Basin during 2007-08. ..............................................................................................45 Figure 15. Location of Yaki ma and Union Gap Storm Drains Sampled during 2007-08. ...................................................................................................................... .......47 Figure 16. Location of Ellensburg Storm Drains Sampled during 2007-08. ....................48 Figure 17. Historical Flow in the Yakima River vs. Flow during the 2007-08 Water Quality Study. ................................................................................................................ ....59 Figure 18. Annual Mean Flow in th e Yakima River at Kiona, 1994-2007. .....................60 Figure 19. Detection Frequency of Selected 30 3(d) Listed Pesticides in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River and N aches River during 2007-08 ..................................................63 Figure 20. Percent of Un-degraded DDT in Water Samples From Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yaki ma River during 2007-08: Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulfur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek. .............................................65

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page vi Figure 21. Detection Frequency of Selected 30 3(d) Listed Pesticid es in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lowe r Yakima River during 2007-08 ........................................66 Figure 22. Percent of Samples Exceeding Human Health Criteria for DDE, DDT, and Dieldrin in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08. .69 Figure 23. Average Total DDT Concentratio ns in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season

. ................................................................................................72 Figure 24. Average Dieldrin Concentrations in the Lowe r Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season

. ......................................................................................................73 Figure 25. Seasonal Patterns in DDE and Total DDT at Two Sites in the Lower Mainstem Yakima River ....................................................................................................74 Figure 26. Seasonal Patterns in Dieldrin Concentrations at Two Sites in the Lower Mainstem Yakima River ....................................................................................................75 Figure 27. Seasonal Patterns in Endosulfan and Chlorpyrifos Concentrations at Two Sites in the Lower Mainstem Yakima River

. .....................................................................76 Figure 28. Endosulfan Concentrations in the Lower Yakima River on April 4-5, 2007........................................................................................................................... .........77 Figure 29. Chlorpyrifos Concentrations in the Lower Yakima River on April 4-5, 2007

. ............................................................................................................................... ....78 Figure 30. DDT Compounds and Dieldrin in Mox ee Drain during 2007-08. ..................79 Figure 31. DDT Compounds a nd Dieldrin in Grange r Drain during 2007-08. ................80 Figure 32. DDT Compounds a nd Dieldrin in Sulphur Creek Wasteway during 2007-08. ...................................................................................................................... .......81 Figure 33. DDT Compounds and Dieldrin in Spring Creek during 2007-08. ..................82 Figure 34. Endosulfan and Chlorpyrifos in Four Major Irrigati on Returns to the Yakima River during 2007-08. ..........................................................................................83 Figure 35. Chlorpyrifos Concentrations in Sulphur Creek Wasteway and Spring Creek Compared to Results from the SWMP...............................................................................85 Figure 36. Average Loads of Selected 303( d) Pesticides duri ng the 2007 Irrigation Season (grams per day). ....................................................................................................87 Figure 37. Average Combined Pesticide Load ing from Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek as a Percentage of the Average Load in the Yakima River @ Kiona during 2007-08. ....................................................................89 Figure 38. Concentration:Cr iteria Ratios for DDT com pounds and Dieldrin in 23 Tributaries and Irrigation Return s to the Lower Yakima River ....................................91 Figure 39. Percent of Samples Exceeding Hu man Health or Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria ...................................................................................................................... .........93 Figure 40. Chlorpyrifos Concentrations M easured in Marion Drain Compared to Results from the SWMP

. ...................................................................................................94

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page vii Figure 41. Results from Monitoring Dieldr in and Endosulfan in Wide Hollow Creek in 2005-06 ..........................................................................................................................95 Figure 42. Pesticide Levels in the Lower Yakima River Drainage, 1988-2008 ...............97 Figure 43. DDE and Dieldrin in Fillets from Lower Yakima River Fish: 1995, 1998, and 2006 ...........................................................................................................................101 Figure 44. Estimated PCB and Toxaphene Con centrations in the Mainstem Yakima River, Tributaries, and Irrigation Returns during and after the 2007 Irrigation Season ..104 Figure 45. Estimates of PCB and Toxaphene Loads in the Yakima River during May-June, 2007................................................................................................................107 Figure 46. Total Suspended Solids Concentrat ions in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River during 2007-08, Showing the Flow at Kiona. ........................................................109 Figure 47. Average Total Suspended Solids Concentrations in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season ..........................................................................110 Figure 48. Average Total Suspended Solids Concentrations in the Lower Yakima River on June 6-7, 2007 ...................................................................................................111 Figure 49. Total Suspended Solids and Fl ow in Major Lower Yakima River Irrigation Returns during 2007-08. ..................................................................................112 Figure 50. Estimates of Suspended Sedime nt Loads in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irr igation Season. ...................................................................................114 Figure 51. Turbidity in the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08 Compared to the State Turbidity Criteria and 2002 TMDL Target. ............................................................118 Figure 52. Compliance with the 90th Percen tile 25 NTU Turbidity Target in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season ........................................................................................................................ ......119 Figure 53. Turbidity and Flow in Four Major Lower Yakima River Irrigation Returns during 2007-08. ..................................................................................................120 Figure 54. Comparison of Turbidity Da ta Collected by Ecology and the Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control during 2007-08 ................................................122 Figure 55. Turbidity in Screening Survey Samples from 23 Other Tributaries and Irrigation Returns to the Lowe r Yakima River during 2007-08. .....................................124 Figure 56. 90th Percentile Turbidity in F our Major Returns to the Lower Yakima River during the 1995, 2003, and 2007 Irrigation Seasons. .............................................125 Figure 57. Trend Analysis of Ecology’s Ambient Monitoring Data on Turbidity in the Yakima River at Kiona ..............................................................................................127 Figure 58. PCB Concentrations in Final Effluents from WWTPs in the Yakima Basin during 2007-08 Compared to Human Health Criterion .........................................130 Figure 59. Total PCB Concentrations in Fi nal Effluents from Yakima Basin WWTPs during 2007-08

. ................................................................................................................131

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page viii Figure 60. PCB Concentrati ons in Yakima Basin WWTP Effluents by Month of Sample Collection, 2007-08.............................................................................................131 Figure 61. WWTP Effluent Flow during Monitoring Peri ods in 2007-08 vs. Design Flow

. .............................................................................................................................. ..134 Figure 62. Percent of Fruit Packer and Vegetable Processor Effluent Samples Exceeding Human Health Criteria (DDT compounds and dieldrin) or Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria (total DDT) ....................................................................................137 Figure 63. Correlation between Total DDT and Total Suspended Solids in Fruit Packer and Vegetable Processor Effluents. .....................................................................138 Figure 64. Precipitation in Yakima dur ing the 2007-08 Water Quality Study, Showing When Stormwater Samples We re Collected (Yakima airport). ........................139 Figure 65. Percent of Yakima/Union Gap Stormwater Samples Exceeding Human Health Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides and PCBs during 2007-08. .........................142 Figure 66. Median Concentrations of Sel ected Pollutants in the Lower Yakima River Drainage during 2007-08 .......................................................................................149 Figure 67. Loading Comparison for Sele cted Pollutants Analyzed in 2007-08

. ............150 Figure 68. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in the Lower Yakima River Drainage: 1988-1995 vs. 2007 Irrigation Seasons. ...........................................................................165 Figure 69. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in the Lower Yakima River Drainage, April 2007-March 2008. ..................................................................................................166 Figure 70. Relationship between Turbidit y and Total Suspended Solids in the Lower Yakima River Dr ainage during 2007-08 ..............................................................166 Figure 71. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in Moxee Drain and Spring Creek during April 2007-March 2008. ..................................................................................................167 Figure 72. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in Sulphur Creek Wasteway during April 2007-March 2008. ..................................................................................................168 Figure 73. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in Granger Drain du ring April 2007- March 2008. .....................................................................................................................169 Figure 74. Relationship Between DDE and Total DDT in the Yakima River, Tributaries, and Irrigatio n Returns during 2007-08 .........................................................169 Figure 75. Total DDT vs. Turbidity in Sele cted Tributaries and Irrigation Returns from the 2007-08 Screening Survey, Highli ghting Low Turbidity Samples that Exceeded the 1 ng/L Total DDT Criterion. .....................................................................170

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page ix 

# List of Tables

Page Table 1. Summary of 303(d) Listings for Chemical Contaminants in the Yakima River Basin (2008 list). ...................................................................................................... ..6 Table 2. Pollutants Being Addressed in This TMDL. ........................................................7 Table 3. Washington State Water Quality Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides, PCBs, and Toxaphene in th e Yakima River Basin ..............................................................9
Table 4. Freshwater Edible Fish Tissue Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides, Toxaphene, PCBs, and Dioxin in Yakima River Fish. ......................................................11 Table 5. Summary of Lower Yakima River TMDL Schedule. .........................................21 Table 6. Summary of Upper Ya kima River TMDL Schedule. .........................................22
Table 7. Mean Concentrations of Select ed 303(d) Listed Compounds and Toxaphene in Composite Fillet Samples from Ya kima River Fish Collected in 2006. .......................24 Table 8. Summary of Sampling Design for the 2007-08 Water Quality Study. ...............30 Table 9. Routine Monitoring Stations in the Lower Yakima River Drainage during 2007-08. ...................................................................................................................... .......31 Table 10. Lower Yakima River Tributarie s and Irrigation Retu rns Screened for Pesticides during 2007-08. .................................................................................................33 Table 11. Sites Where SPMDs Were Depl oyed in the Yakima River Drainage during 2007. .......................................................................................................................37
Table 12. Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Yakima Basin. .........................................42 Table 13. Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors Monitored during 2007-08. ..............44 Table 14. Number of Samples Collected for the 2007-08 Water Quality Study. .............49 Table 15. Field Procedures for Water Samples. ...............................................................51 Table 16. Laboratory Met hods.for Water Samples ...........................................................54
Table 17. Mean Relative Percent Differe nce Between Replicate Field Samples Analyzed during the 2007-08 Water Quality Study. .........................................................57 Table 18. Summary of Results from Monitori ng 303(d) Listed Pest icides at Four Locations in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River and in the Naches River during 2007-08: Yakima River at Harr ison Bridge, Naches River at mouth, Yakima River at Parker Bridge, Yakima River at Euclid Br idge, Yakima River at Kiona Bridge. ...........62 Table 19. Summary of Results from Monitori ng 303(d) Listed Pesticides in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Ya kima River during 2007-08: Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, Spring Creek. .................................................64

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page x Table 20. Percent of Samples Exceeding Hu man Health Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in the Mainstem Lower Yaki ma River and Naches River during 2007-08. .....67 Table 21. Percent of Samples Exceeding Hu man Health Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in Four Major Irrigation Retu rns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08. ...........................................................................................................................68 Table 22. Percent of Samples Exceeding Ch ronic Aquatic Life Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in the Mainstem Lowe r Yakima River and Naches River during 2007-08. ...................................................................................................................... .......70 Table 23. Percent of Samples Exceeding Ch ronic Aquatic Life Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08. ............................................................................................................................71 Table 24. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Data Reported for Sulphur Creek Wasteway and Spring Creek by SWMP. .............................................................................................86 Table 25. Average Loads of Selected 303( d) Pesticides during the 2007 Irrigation Season. ....................................................................................................................... ........86 Table 26. Summary of Results from Screen ing for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in 23 Tributaries and Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08. .........90 Table 27. Lower Yakima River Irrigation Returns that Substantially Exceeded Human Health or Chronic Aquatic Life Cr iteria in Screening Samples Collected during 2007-08. ..................................................................................................................92 Table 28. Instances Where a High Propor tion of Un-degraded DDT was Found in 2007-08 Screening Survey Samples. .............................................................................92
Table 29. Pesticide Loads from 23 Screen ing Survey Tributaries and Irrigation Returns Compared to Loads from the Four Major Returns: Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulfur Creek Wast eway, and Spring Creek. ...........................................................96 Table 30. Estimated PCB and Toxaphene C oncentrations in the Yakima River, Tributaries, and Irrigation Retu rns during Spring and Fall 2007. ....................................103
Table 31. Estimates of PCB and Toxa phene Loads during May-June 2007. .................106 Table 32. Summary of Results from Monito ring Total Suspended Sediment (TSS) in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season. ......................................108 Table 33. Estimates of Suspended Sediment Loads in the Mainstem Yakima River, Naches River, and Major Irrigation Re turns during the 2007 Irrigation Season. ............113
Table 34. Volatile Solids as Percent of Tota l Suspended Solids in the Yakima River, Naches River, and Four Majo r Irrigation Returns, 2007-08. ...........................................115 Table 35. Summary of Results from Monito ring Turbidity in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season. .........................................................................116 Table 36. Background Turbidity (90th percen tile) in the Lower Yakima River: Previous TMDL, Effectiveness Monitoring, and Present Study. .....................................117

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xi Table 37. Percent of Samples Exceeding th e Existing TMDL Turbidity Target in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River during 2007-08. ......................................................119 Table 38. Comparison of Turbidity Data Collected by Ecology and the RozaSunnyside Board of Joint Control during the 2007 Irrigation Season. ...........................123 Table 39. Compliance with Turbidity Crit eria and TMDL Targets in the Lower Yakima River Draina ge during 2007-08. .........................................................................124 Table 40. Summary of Results from Monito ring 303(d) Listed Pesticides, PCBs, TSS, and Turbidity in Final Effluents from Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Yakima Basin during 2007-08. ........................................................................................129 Table 41. Summary of Low-Level PCB, DDT, and Dieldrin Data for Eastern Washington WWTP Effluents. ........................................................................................132 Table 42. Summary of Total PCB Loads Meas ured in Final Effluents from Yakima Basin WWTPs during 2007-08. .......................................................................................133 Table 43. Summary of Results from Mon itoring 303(d) Listed Pesticides and Toxaphene in Effluents from Six Fruit a nd Vegetable Processo rs in the Lower Yakima Basin during 2007-08. ........................................................................................135
Table 44. Percent of Fruit Packer and Vegetable Processor Effluent Samples Exceeding Water Quality Criteria for 303( d) Listed Pesticides during 2007-08. ............136 Table 45. Summary of Pesticide Loads Measur ed in Combined Final Effluents from Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors th at Discharge to Surface Water in the Lower Yakima River Drainage during 2007-08. ............................................................137 Table 46. Summary of Results from Monito ring TSS and Turbidity in Effluents from Six Fruit Packers and Vegetable Pr ocessors in the Lower Yakima Basin during 2007-08. ................................................................................................................138 Table 47. Rainfall Prior To and During Stor mwater Sampling in Yakima/Union Gap During 2007-08. ...............................................................................................................140 Table 48. Summary of Results from An alyzing 303(d) Listed Pesticides and Toxaphene in Yakima/Union Ga p Stormwater during 2007-08. .....................................140 Table 49. Summary of Results from Anal yzing PCBs in Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg Stormwater during 2007-08. (ng/L, parts per trillion) .................................141 Table 50. Summary of Results from Analyz ing TSS and Turbidity in Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg Stormwater during 2007-08. ...........................................................143 Table 51. Comparison of 303(d) Pesticide, PCB, and TSS Levels Measured in Urban Stormwater Samples in Eastern Washington. (Median values) ...........................144 Table 52. Values Used to Calculate St ormwater Loads from Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg. ................................................................................................................146 Table 53. Estimated Loading of 303(d) Listed Pesticides and PCBs in Stormwater Runoff from Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg. ...........................................................147

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xii Table 54. Estimated TSS Loading in St ormwater from Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg. ................................................................................................................... ....147 Table 55. Relative Importance of Point and Nonpoint Loads to Lower Yakima River. 153 Table 56. Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in Yakima River Storage Reservoirs, Mainstem Yakima River, and N aches River for 303(d) Listed Chemicals and Toxaphene during Ecology’s 2006-08 Fish Tissue and Water Quality Studies. ......155 Table 57. Summary of Water Quality Ex ceedances in Tributaries and Irrigation Returns of the Yakima and Naches Rivers for 303(d) Listed Chemicals and Toxaphene. .................................................................................................................... ...156 Table 58. Yakima Basin WRIAs Where a TMDL or Othe r Pollution Control Plan is Needed. .........................................................................................................................157 Table 59. Potential Unlisted Waterbody Impairments in the Yakima River Drainage ..158
Table 60. Locations and Pollutants Wh ere a TMDL is No Longer Required. ...............162 Table 61. Numeric TMDL Targets (Water Quality Criteria) for Pesticides and PCBs That Currently Exceed Standards in the Yakima River, Tributaries, or Irrigation Returns. ............................................................................................................163 Table 62. Existing TMDL Targets for Turbid ity and Total Suspended Solids in the Yakima River. ..................................................................................................................164 Table 63. Revised TMDL Targets Proposed for Turbidity in the Lower Yakima River. ........................................................................................................................ ........171 Table 64. Loading Capacity Estimates for Meeting Human Health Criteria for DDT Compounds, Dieldrin, Chlordane, Toxaphene , and PCBs in the Yakima River. ............174 Table 65. Loading Capacity Estimates for Meeting Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria for Total DDT and Toxaphene in the Yakima River. ......................................................175 Table 66. Loading Capacity Estimates for Meeting Chronic Aquatic Life Criterion for Chlorpyrifos in the Yakima River. .............................................................................176 Table 67. Loading Capacity Estimates for Meeting Acute Aquatic Life Criterion for Chlorpyrifos in the Yakima River. .............................................................................176
Table 68. Percent Reductions Needed to Me et the Existing TMDL Turbidity Target in the Lower Yakima River Mainstem during the 2007 Irr igation Season. .....................177 Table 69. Estimates of Loading Reductions Needed in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River to Meet Human Health Criteria of DDE, Dieldrin, Chlordane, Toxaphene, and Total PCBs. ............................................................................................................... 178

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xiii 

# Abstract

The Yakima River, along with several of its trib utaries and irrigation retu rns, is on the federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list for not meeting Wash ington State water quality standards for a range of chemical contaminants. The chemicals incl ude six legacy pesticid es or breakdown products (DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin, chlordane, and alpha-BHC), two current use insecticides (endosulfan and chlorpyrifos), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). All of these chemicals have exceeded Washington State water quality criteria for protection of human health for fish consumption or criteria for protection of aquatic life. Except for endosulfan and chlorpyrifos, these legacy polluta nts are no longer produced or used in the United States.

The Clean Water Act requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for every waterbody and pollutant on the 303(d) list. A TM DL is a written, quantitative assessment of water quality problems and pollutant sources that cause the problems. The TMDL determines the amount (load) of a pollutant that can be di scharged to the waterbody and allocates the load among sources. The Washington State Department of Ecology conduc ted a fish tissue survey in 2006 and a water quality study in 2007-08 (present report) in the Ya kima River basin to aid in developing a TMDL for the 303(d) listed chemicals. Dioxin was excluded from the water quality study due to budget constraints and because the fish tissue survey show ed human health criteria were very close to being met.

The water quality study analyzed 303(d) pesticides, PCBs, suspe nded sediment, and turbidity in surface waters, municipal wastewat er treatment plant effluents, fruit packer and vegetable processor effluents, and urban stormwater runoff. The chemi cal analysis was expanded to include toxaphene, an unlisted leg acy pesticide detected in the fi sh tissue survey. This report describes how the study was conducted and analyzes the data in terms of compliance with water quality criteria, temporal and seasonal patter ns, trends, pollutant lo ading, and the relative importance of sources.

Numeric water quality targets are described for bringing the Yakima River into compliance with water quality standards for DDT compounds, dieldrin, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, PCBs, toxaphene, and turbidity. The river’s lo ading capacity is calculated for these pollutants.

Endosulfan, chlordane (upper Yakima River only) , alpha-BHC, and dioxin (Keechelus Reservoir only) are now meeting standards and should be removed from the 303(d) list during the next listing cycle. The report concludes with ad ditional recommendations for the TMDL, 303(d) listing, source tracing, and monitoring.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xiv 

# Acknowledgements

The authors thank the following people for their contribution to this study:

 The Yakama Nation for giving permission to collect samples on the Yakama Reservation.

 Elaine Brouillard of the Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control, Marie Zuroske of the South Yakima Conservation District, Kathleen Satnik of the Kittitas County Water Purveyors, and Roger Satnik of the Kittitas Reclamation District for advice on study design, access to sampling sites, and sharing data.

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Kittitas Reclamation District, Kennewick Irrigation District, Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District and Board of Control, and Columbia Irrigation District for access to diversion dams.

 Yakima basin wastewater treatment plant operato rs for their cooperation in obtaining effluent samples.

 Andrus & Roberts, Apple King, ConAgra Foods – Lamb Weston, Gilbert Orchards, Snokist, and Zirkle Fruit for their cooperation in obtaining effluent samples.

 JD Zimny, John Akers, and Irma Grogan of the City of Ellensburg, and Brett Sheffield and Randy Meloy of the City of Yakima, for advice on stormwater sampling.

 The Bunnel family for access to Spring Creek.

 Sandra Embrey, U.S. Geological Survey, for providing water quality data.

 Helen Rueda, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, for review comments on the final report.

 Staff with the Washington State Department of Ecology

o Mark Peterschmidt, Jane Creech, Ryan Anders on, and Greg Bohn of the Central Regional Office Yakima River TMDL Team for project guidance, help with field work, and review comments on the final report

o Chris Coffin, Jenna Durkee, Dan Dugger, and others for assistance with field work.

o Manchester Environmental Labo ratory for analyzing project samples and reviewing the laboratory data.

o Dale Norton, Toxics Studies Unit supervis or, for project support and guidance.

o Joe Joy for advice on study design and data analysis.

o Dave Hallock for trend analysis of turbidity data.

o Harriet Beale, Helen Bresler, and Melissa Gildersleeve, Water Quality Program, for advice on stormwater issues

. 

### o Mike Woodall, Geographic Information System (GIS) Technical Services, for preparing Figure 1.

o Dale Norton, Paul Pickett, Cheryl Niemi, Melissa Gildersleeve, and Helen Bresler for review comments on the draft report.

o Joan LeTourneau, Cindy Cook, and Gayla Lord for formatting and proofreading the final report.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xv 

# Executive Summary

Total Maximum Daily Loads

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requi res states to prepare a list every two years of waterbodies that do not meet wate r quality standards. In Washi ngton, the 303(d) list is compiled by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Clean Water Act requires that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for every waterbody and pollutant on the list. TMDLs must be approved by the U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA).

A TMDL includes a written, quantitative assessmen t of water quality problems and pollutant sources that cause the problems. The TMDL dete rmines the amount of a pollutant that can be discharged to the waterbody and still meet sta ndards (the loading capac ity) and allocates that pollutant load among the various sources. If the pollutant comes from a discrete (point) source such as a municipal or industrial facility’s discharge pipe, that facility’s share of the loading capacity is called a wasteload allocation . If the pollutant comes fr om a set of diffuse (nonpoint) sources such as farm runoff, the cumulative share is called a load allocation

. The goal of a TMDL is to achieve clean water. Ecology works with th e local community to develop (1) a strategy to control the pollution and (2) a monitori ng plan to assess effectiveness of the water quality improvement activities.

The water quality study described in this report was conducted to aid in developing a TMDL for 303(d) listed pesticides and PCBs in the Yakima River. Load and wasteload allocations for the chemicals of concern will be addressed in a separate TMDL Water Quality Improvement Report to EPA, to be prepared by the Ecology Water Quality Program at a later date. While this study provides information on waters throughout the wa tershed, the TMDL that will be derived from this report will focus on those waters of Washington State within the Yakima basin. 

## Watershed Description

The Yakima River flows 215 miles out of Keechel us Lake in the Cascade Mountains to the Columbia River near Richland, dr aining an area of 6,155 square m iles (Figure ES-1). The major population centers are, in downs tream order, Ellensburg (16, 542), Yakima (79,480), Toppenish (9,000), Sunnyside (14,710), and West Richland (10,210).

The upper Yakima basin includes the Kittita s Valley, an area around Ellensburg devoted primarily to hay, cereal crops, and irrigated past ure. The lower Yakima basin is the region downstream of the Naches River confluence at th e city of Yakima. The lower Yakima Valley produces fruit, vegetables, grapes, other specia lty crops such as hops and mint, dairy products, and beef. The lower Yakima basin is one of th e most intensively irrigated and agriculturally diverse areas in the United States. Irrigation de livery is primarily managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Diversions to the irrigation can als begin in mid-March a nd end in mid-October, depending on the water supply av ailable and the district.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xvi Figure ES-1. Yakima River Basin.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xvii For many water quality parameters, the quality of irrigation returnflows largely determines the quality of water in the lower Ya kima River. Agricultural drains in the mid and lower valleys have been found to be significant sources of nutrients, suspended sedi ment, fecal coliform bacteria, and pesticides. The hi ghest detection frequencies and concentrations of pesticides generally occur during irri gation season. Pesticides that persist in soil, such as DDT, continue to be transported in streams and drains throughout the year, especially during storm runoff or snowmelt. In 1993, the Washington State Departme nt of Health (WDOH) issued an advisory that recommended limiting consumption of bottom fi sh from the lower Yakima River due to the high levels of the legacy pesticide DD T and its breakdown products DDE and DDD.

Much of the land that lies to the south of the lower Yakima River is within the Yakama Reservation. The 1.2 million acre reservation occupies about 15% of the basin. A number of the tributaries and irrigation return s that enter the lower Yakima Ri ver flow through or originate on the reservation.

Land within the Yakama Reservation is under the sovereign jurisdiction of the Yakama Nation. The Yakima River forms the reservation’s boundar y from Ahtanum Creek in Union Gap to the Mabton-Sunnyside Bridge. Water quality scientists , technicians, and educators from the Yakama Nation, Ecology, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) , and other agencies have maintained a cooperative partnership to monitor conditions and promote appropriate water management practices. 

## Yakima River 303(d) Listings

The Yakima River, along with several of its trib utaries and irrigation retu rns, are 303(d) listed for exceeding water quality standards for a range of chemical contaminants. The include six legacy pesticides or breakdown products (DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin, chlordane, and alphaBHC), two current-use insecticid es (endosulfan and chlorpyrifos ), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) (T able ES-1). Historical da ta collected by Ecology, USGS, and EPA have shown these pollutants exceed Wash ington State human health criteria for fish consumption or water quality criteria for protec ting aquatic life. Washington’s human health criteria are adopted from the EPA National Toxics Rule and are intended to protect the average fish consumer among the general public.

Most of these chemicals bioaccumulate in fi sh, wildlife, and humans. The DDT breakdown product DDE, PCBs, and dioxin, in particular, are highly bioaccumulative due to their stability and solubility in lipids (fat). Concentrations in fish tissues can be tens of thousands of times higher than in the surrounding water.

DDT, dieldrin, chlordane, alpha-B HC, and PCBs are legacy pollutants no longer produced or used in the United States. PCBs had numerous industrial applications as insulating fluids, plasticizers, in inks, and carbonless paper, and as heat transfer a nd hydraulic fluids. Dioxin is an unintended by-product of combusti on and certain industrial proce sses. EPA has classed these compounds as probable human carcinogens. Endosul fan and chlorpyrifos are currently approved for use as insecticides on a variety of crops. They have adverse human health and aquatic life effects but are not carcinogens. Thei r bioaccumulation potential is low.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xviii Table ES-1. 303(d) Listed Pollutants in the Yakima River Basin (2008 list).

Pollutant Upper Yakima River

(WRIA 39) Lower Yakima River

(WRIA 37) Naches River† (WRIA 38) Pesticides DDT X DDE* X X DDD* X Dieldrin X Endosulfan X Chlordane X X Alpha-BHC X Chlorpyrifos X PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) X X X

Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) X X *DDT breakdown product. WRIA = Water Resources Inventory Area. †listings are for Cowiche Creek.



### In addition to the toxic chemicals shown above, th e Yakima River basin also has 303(d) listings for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and fecal coliform bacteria. 

## Existing TMDLs

Two related TMDLs are already in place for the Yakima River. The Lower Yakima River Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL was established in 1998. The Upper Yakima River Suspended Sediment and Organochlorine Pesticide TMDL was established in 2002. These TMDLs set numeric water quality targets to be achieved for DDT compounds, dieldrin, suspended sediment, and turbidity, and sc hedules for meeting the targets.

The basic premise behind both TMDLs is that DDT and other pesticides attached to farm soils are being washed into the river at levels that a dversely affect aquatic lif e and cause an increased health risk to people consuming fish. Suspended sediments – measured as total suspended solids (TSS) – also cause excessive turbidity. The combined effects of elevated TSS, turbidity, and pesticides degrade fish and wildlife habitat. Threatened and endangered salmonids are a particular concern.

The present study builds on results of these efforts. While the Lower Yakima River TMDL was approved by EPA for meeting aq uatic life criteria, it was not approved for achieving compliance with the more restrictive human health criteria. Therefore, the lower Yakima River remains 303(d) listed for DDT compounds a nd dieldrin, in addition to ot her chemicals listed after the TMDL was completed. The Upper Yakima River TMDL was approved as a plan for meeting both aquatic life and human health criteria, a nd the listings for DDT compounds and dieldrin

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xix were subsequently moved from Category 5 (TMD L required) to Category 4 (has an approved TMDL). 

## 2006 Fish Tissue Survey

In view of the 303(d) listings, Ecology surveyed pesticide, PCB, and dioxin levels in resident fish species throughout the Yakima River in 2006. Fifty-six composite fillet samples and 30 composite whole fish samples were analyzed from the Keechelus Lake storage reservoir to the mouth of the Yakima River, represen ting approximately 300 individual fish.

Findings showed that the primary human health concerns for fish consumption in the Yakima River were the DDT breakdown pr oduct DDE, PCBs, dieldrin, and t oxaphene, an unlisted legacy pesticide. Except for PCBs, the concern was prim arily restricted to the lower river. The DDE, PCB, dieldrin, and toxaphene results are summarized in Figures ES-2 and ES-3.

Although still not meeting water qua lity standards, the levels of DDT compounds and dieldrin in Yakima River fish had decreased substantiall y since the suspended se diment and pesticide TMDLs were first initiated. WDOH has conclude d that the levels are now low enough to lift the 1993 fish consumption advisory for DDT compo unds. An advisory was retained to limit consumption of lower river carp due to PCBs.

Figure ES-2. DDE and PCB Levels in Ya kima River Fish Collected in 2006. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Total PCBs (parts per billion)DDE (parts per billion) DDE PCBs



### DDE human health criterion = 32 ppb PCB human health criterion = 5.3 ppb

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xx Figure ES-3. Dieldrin and Toxaphene Levels in Yakima River Fi sh Collected in 2006.



## 2007-08 Water Quality Study

Based on results of the 2006 fish survey, Ecolog y initiated a year-long water quality study in the Yakima River basin in 2007 to ai d in developing a TMDL for the 303(d) listed pesticides, PCBs, and toxaphene. Dioxin was excluded from the st udy due to budget constr aints and because the fish samples showed the human health criterion was met or very close to being met, depending on location.

The sampling effort was weighted toward the lowe r Yakima River due to the greater number of 303(d) listings and because of th e existing TMDL for suspended se diment and pesticides in the upper river. The study analyzed 303(d) pesticid es, PCBs, toxaphene, suspended sediment, and turbidity in surface waters, municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents, fruit packer and vegetable processor effluents (lower river only), and urban stormwater runoff. Chemical analysis for the upper river was limited to PCBs and toxaphene. Field work was initiated in April 2007 and completed in June 2008. Over 400 samples were analyzed.

The present report describes how the water quality study was conducte d and analyzes the data in terms of compliance with water quality criteria, temporal and seasonal patterns, trends, pollutant loading, and relative importance of sources. Exam ples are provided of significant water quality improvements already realized due to farmers reducing soil eros ion and associated pesticide inputs to surface waters to meet TMDL water quality targets. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Toxaphene (parts per billion)Dieldrin (parts per billion) Dieldrin Toxaphene

Dieldrin human health criterion = 0.65 ppb Toxaphene human health criterion = 9.6 ppb

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xxi 

## Water Quality Study Findings

Key findings of the water quality study include the following:

 Despite significant, recent reductions in soil erosion, lower Yakima River irrigation returns continue to discharge elevated levels of suspe nded sediment that contribute to exceedances of turbidity and pesticide criteria and TMDL target s, particularly during the first half of the irrigation season. Figure ES-4 shows turbidity levels during the 2007 irrigation season in the lower mainstem compared to the existing TMDL target.

Figure ES-4. Turbidity in the Lower Mainst em Yakima River duri ng the 2007 Irrigation Season.

 Although much reduced over historical levels, the lower Yakima River and a number of its tributaries and irrigation retu rns still exceed human health or aquatic life criteria for DDT, DDT breakdown products, and dieldrin (Figure ES-5).

 A first-time effort to character ize chemical contaminants in urban stormwater discharges to the Yakima River found high levels of pesticid es, PCBs, TSS, and turbidity in runoff from the cities of Yakima, Union Gap, and Ellensbu rg (pesticides not an alyzed in Ellensburg samples) (Figure ES-6).

 Several irrigation returns to the lower Yakima River exceed human health or aquatic life criteria for toxaphene and PCBs. Exceedances of the toxaphene aquatic life criteria were observed in the lower Yakima mainstem during the irrigation season.

 Peak chlorpyrifos concentrati ons in some of the same retu rns exceed aquatic life criteria during the spring and fall when this insecticide is being applied. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35TurbidityUnits(NTU)

TMDL Target

Euclid

Kiona

Parker 

### Irrigation Season

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xxii Figure ES-5. Lower Yakima River Tributaries and Irrigation Returns that Exceeded Water Quality Criteria for DDT Compounds and Dieldrin in 2007-08.

Figure ES-6. Comparison of Pesticide and PCB Levels in Surface Water and Permitted Discharges (median values, log scale). 0.01

0.1

1 10Parts per trillion Yakima Area Stormwater Major Returns

Other Tribs & Returns

Fruit & Vegetable

WWTPs

Mainstem & Naches R.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xxiii In terms of loading, irrigation returns continue to be the predominant cause of degraded water quality in the lower Yakima River. These are the most significant sour ces needing control to reduce the adverse effects of elevated turbidity, pesticides, and PCBs. Urban stormwater runoff appears to be a significant source of these same pollutants and warrants additional monitoring of spatial and temporal variability to be tter identify and control sources.

This study found that reductions ar e also needed for PCBs in WW TP effluents and dieldrin in fruit packer and vegetable processo r effluents, if they are to meet water quality criteria at the point of discharge. However, these are relati vely low volume discharg es. Due to chemical interferences, legacy pesticides could not be an alyzed down to water quality criteria levels in WWTP effluent.



## Pollutants for Which a TMDL or Other Pollution Control Plan is Needed

The combined results from Ecology’s fish tissu e and water quality studies show that DDT compounds, dieldrin, chlordane, ch lorpyrifos, toxaphene, and PCBs currently exceed standards in the Yakima River basin at the locations indicated in Tabl e ES-2. Thus, 303(d) listing continues to be warranted for these pollutants, and a TMDL or other pollution control plan should be implemented. Dioxin marginally exceed s standards and should therefore continue to be listed. The chlordane exceedance is also marginal and limited to fish near Prosser.

Table ES-2. Locations and Pollutants Where a TMDL or Other Pollution Control Plan is Needed.

Reservoirs (WRIA 39) Upper Yakima River (WRIA 39) Lower Yakima River (WRIA 37) Naches River (WRIA 38) Keechelus Lake

Kachess Lake Mainstem Wilson Creek Mainstem Tributaries & Returns Mainstem Cowiche Creek PCBs PCBs Toxaphene* PCBs PCBs PCBs PCBs Dioxin Toxaphene* Toxaphene* DDE DDE DDE Total DDT Total DDT † DDT

Dieldrin Total DDT Dioxin Chlorpyrifos WRIA = Water Resources Inventory Area. *new finding, not currently 303(d) listed. † total DDT = DDT+DDE+DDD.



### The low-level occurrence of PCBs is widespread in Washington rivers and lakes, and is the reason for many 303(d) listings. Targeted cleanups of PCB contaminated sites may be more effective for reducing PCB levels in the Yakima River than the traditi onal TMDL approach of setting load and wasteload allocations.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page xxiv Because of limited Ecology resources, which ex tend beyond costs and include staffing levels, dioxin will not be included in this TMDL. Dioxin will remain on the 303(d) list of contaminants to be addressed in the Yakima basin in the futu re. Ecology plans to address dioxins on a larger scale (possibly region- or state- wide) in the future. Addition ally, because dioxins are often carried via air and can pollute sizeable areas not necessarily limited to watersheds, a larger TMDL footprint will likely be more effective and efficient. 

## Numeric TMDL Targets and Loading Capacity

This report proposes numeric wate r quality targets for the TMDL. The targets identify the specific instream goals or criter ia for the TMDL, which equate to attainment of water quality standards. The targets include: (1) a partial re vision to the existing TMDL turbidity targets for the lower Yakima River; (2) a subset of the wate r quality criteria for pesticides and PCBs; and (3) equivalent human health criteria-based target s for edible fish tissue. Similar targets for pesticides and turbidity are alr eady in effect as part of the Upper Yakima River TMDL

. The loading capacity (grams per day) of the Ya kima River was calculated for total DDT, DDE, dieldrin, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, toxaphene, and PCBs. Reductions in the concentrations and loads of these compounds will be needed to m eet the water quality targets and not exceed loading capacity.



## Recommendations

The report concludes with recommendations fo r the TMDL, 303(d) list, source tracing, and further monitoring. These include:

 Develop TMDLs or other pollution control pl ans for DDT compounds, dieldrin, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, toxaphene, and PCBs for t hose areas indicated in Table ES-2.

 Remove the 303(d) listings for endosulfan, chlordane (upper Yakima River only), alphaBHC, and dioxin (Keechelus Reservoir only).

 Improve current understanding of variability in concentrations and loads of pesticides, PCBs, suspended solids, and turbidity in Yakima area urban stormwater runoff, with the ultimate aim of identifying and controlling sources.

 Identify sources of toxaphene and P CBs in selected irrigation returns.

 Characterize dry weather discharg e of pesticides, PCBs, suspende d solids, and turbidity from Yakima area urban storm drains.

 Continue turbidity monitoring of irriga tion returns and expa nd where appropriate.

 Periodically monitor Yakima River fish for th e contaminants of concern to assess progress toward meeting human health criteria and TMDL targets.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 1 

# What is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)?

Federal Clean Water Act Requirements

The Clean Water Act established a process to id entify and clean up pollute d waters. Under the Act, each state is required to have its own water quality standards designed to protect, restore, and preserve water quality. Wate r quality standards consist of designated uses for protection, such as cold water biota and drinking water suppl y, as well as criteria, usually numeric criteria, to achieve those uses.

Every two years, states are required to prepare a list of waterbodies – lake s, rivers, streams, or marine waters – that do not meet water quality standa rds. This list is call ed the 303(d) list. To develop the list, the Washington State Departme nt of Ecology (Ecology) compiles its own water quality data along with data subm itted by local, state, and federal governments, tribes, industries, and citizen monitoring groups. All data are reviewed to ensure that they were collected using appropriate scientific methods be fore being used to develop the 303(d) list. The 303(d) list is part of the larger Water Quality Assessment.

The Water Quality Assessment is a list that tells a more comple te story about the condition of Washington’s water. This list divi des waterbodies into five categories: Category 1 – Meets standards for para meter(s) for which it has been tested. Category 2 – Waters of concern. Category 3 – Waters w ith no data available. Category 4 – Polluted waters that do not require a TMDL because: 4a. Has an approved TMDL and it is being implemented. 4b. Has a pollution control plan in place that should solve the problem. 4c. Is impaired by a non-pollutant su ch as low water flow, dams, culverts. Category 5 – Polluted waters that require a TMDL – the 303(d) list.



## TMDL Process Overview

The Clean Water Act requires that a TMDL be developed for each of the waterbodies on the 303(d) list. A TMDL identifies how much pollu tion needs to be reduced or eliminated to achieve clean water. Ecology then works with th e local community to de velop (1) a strategy to control the pollution and (2) a monitoring plan to assess effectiveness of the water quality improvement activities. TMDL s must be approved by EPA.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 2 

## Elements Required in a TMDL

The goal of a TMDL is to ensure the impaired water will attain water quality standards. A TMDL includes a written, quantitative assessm ent of water quality problems and pollutant sources that cause the problem. The TMDL determines the amount of a given pollutant that can be discharged to the waterbody and still meet st andards (the loading capacity) and allocates that load among the various sources.

Identification of a waterbody’s load ing capacity for a pollutant is an important step in developing a TMDL. EPA defines loading capacity as “the greatest amount of loadin g that a waterbody can receive without violating water quality standards” ( www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/glossary.html ). The loading capacity provides a reference fo r calculating the amount of pollution reduction needed to bring a waterbody into compliance with standards. By definition, a TMDL is the sum of the allocations, which must not exceed the loading capacity.

The portion of the receiving water’s loading capacity assigned to a particular source is a load or wasteload allocation. If the polluta nt comes from a discrete (point ) source such as a municipal or industrial facility’s discharge pipe, that facility’s share of the loading capacity is called a wasteload allocation . If the pollutant comes from a set of diffuse (nonpoint) sources such as farm runoff, the cumulative share is called a load allocation

.

The TMDL must also consider seasonal variations and include a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge about the causes of the water quality pr oblem or its loading capacity. A reserve capacity for future loads from growth pressures is sometimes included as well. The sum of the wasteload and load allo cations, the margin of safety, and any reserve capacity must be equal to or le ss than the loading capacity.

TMDL = Loading Capacity = sum of all wasteloa d allocations + sum of all load allocations + margin of safety.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 3 

# Why is Ecology Conducting a TMDL Study in This Watershed?

Overview

This TMDL project will incorporate and update the DDT and suspended sediments water quality improvement plans already in place in the Yakima basin, while capturing previously unaddressed water quality impairments due to other toxics pollu tants. While this study provides information on waters throughout the watershed, the TMDL derived from this report will focus on those waters of Washington State within the Yakima basin.

In 1994 Ecology began to seriously address pollute d runoff in the Yakima River watershed when it initiated the Yakima River Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL study. That project concluded that reducing polluted runoff from irrigated agricultural activities was a priority for reducing DDT and its breakdown products. The 1997 public ation of the TMDL included goals for controlling sediment runoff reaching the Yakima River through irrigation drains and a schedule for re-evaluating contaminant loading to the river.

An Ecology TMDL study in the upper Yakima Ri ver conducted in 1999 also showed that DDT, its breakdown products, and other organochlorine pesticides could be reduced if suspended sediment loading from agricu ltural areas were reduced.

The current study answers the TMDL requirement to check the progress of the earlier work on suspended sediments and DDT while expanding the study to capture ot her toxics in the watershed.

After a decade of implementation activities th at reduce suspended sediment loading to the Yakima River and its tributarie s, Ecology began this study to:

 Assess progress toward meeting TMDL targets for reducing DDT and di eldrin levels in Yakima River fish.

 Verify accuracy of the current 303(d) listings for chemical contaminants in Yakima River fish and water.

 Provide data to the Washington State Depart ment of Health to update the 1993 fish consumption advisory on DDT.

 Set or adjust pollution reduction goals from a br oad range of sources – stormwater, irrigated agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, and other sources – for meeting human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic comp ounds in the Yakima River.

Due to the size of the Yakima basin and the num ber and complexity of toxics issues, Ecology decided to split the TMDL into two parts: a Water Quality Study Findings Report (the present study) and a future TMDL Water Quality Impr ovement Report. This Water Quality Study Findings Report assesses the current status of toxics pollution problems and sources in the Yakima basin and calculates the river’s loading capacity for the chemicals of concern. The

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 4 Water Quality Improvement Report will include the overall approach to control the pollution ( Implementation Strategy ) and a monitoring plan to assess th e effectiveness of the water quality improvement activities undertaken ( Effectiveness Monitoring ). Load and wasteload allocations for the chemicals of concern will be addressed in the Water Quality Improvement Report, to be prepared by the Ecology Water Quality Program at a later date and submitted to EPA. 

## Study Area

The study area for this TMDL includes the Yakima Ri ver, its tributaries, a nd irrigation returns. This area extends from the headwaters of Keech elus Lake to the Yakima River confluence with the Columbia River. It includes Water Resour ce Inventory Areas (WRI A) 39: Upper Yakima River, WRIA 38: Naches River, and WRIA 37: Lower Yakima River (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Water Resource Inve ntory Areas for Yakima River Pesticides and PCBs TMDL.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 5 

## Yakima Basin Waterbodies on Ecology’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters

Washington’s 2008 303(d) list in cludes numerous Category 5 lis tings in the Yakima River watershed for a range of chemical contaminants ( www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html ). The include six legacy pesticides or breakdown products (DDT, DDE, D DD, dieldrin, chlordane, and alpha-BHC), two current use insecticides (endosulfan and chlorpyrifos), pol ychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Waterbodies in Ca tegory 5 require a TMDL.

The individual Category 5 listings for chemical s that have failed to meet (exceeded) human health criteria in edible fish tissue samples from the Yakima River are in Appendix A. The listings for chemicals that have exceeded human health and aquatic life criteria in water samples are in Appendix B. Both sets of listings are su mmarized in Table 1. Ninety-five percent of the current Category 5 listings in the Yakima ba sin are for the lower river (89 out of 94).

Although EPA approved the Lower Yakima River Suspende d Sediment and DDT TMDL for meeting aquatic life and turbidity criteria, it wa s not approved for achieving compliance with the more restrictive human health pesticide criteria. Therefore, the lower ri ver continues to have Category 5 listings for DDT, DD E, DDD, and dieldrin. The Upper Yakima River Suspended Sediment and Organochlorine Pesticide TMDL was approved for meeting human health criteria, and the listings for DDT compounds and dieldr in were subsequently moved to Category 4a (waterbodies that have an approved TMDL).

The 2008 303(d) list had a number of new Yakima River listings for organochlorine compounds including PCBs, dioxin, and the pesticides endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, chlordane, and alpha-BHC. These listings were based on fish and water samples analyzed by Ecology and EPA since 1995.

Most of these chemicals bioaccumulate in fis h, wildlife, and humans. DDE, PCBs, and dioxin, in particular, are highly bioaccumulative due to their stability and solubility in lipids (fat). Concentrations in fish tissues, for example, can be tens of thousands of times higher than in the surrounding water.

PCBs and most chlorinated pesticides are legacy pollutants no longer produced or used in the United States. They were banned by EPA in the 1970s and 1980s for ecological and human health concerns, but they persis t in soil, lakes, rivers, and st reams. Endosulfan, a chlorinated insecticide, and chlorpyrifos , an organophosphorus insecticide, are currently approved for a variety of crops. Their bioaccumulation potential is low. The 303(d) listings for endosulfan and chlorpyrifos are for exceeding aqua tic life criteria in water samples.

PCBs were once widely used in i ndustrial applications as insulati ng fluids, plasticizers, in inks and carbonless paper, and as heat transfer and hydraulic fluids . Dioxin is an unintended byproduct of combustion and certain industrial proce sses. These chemicals are routinely detected in Washington rivers and streams and are the cause of ma ny 303(d) listings.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 6 Table 1. Summary of 303(d) Listings for Chem ical Contaminants in the Yakima River Basin (2008 list).

Reach Number of Listings Parameter Applies To

Upper Yakima River (WRIA 39)

Keechelus Lake 2 PCBs, Dioxin Fish tissue Yakima R. Canyon 3 PCBs, Dioxin, Chlordane Fish tissue

Naches River (WRIA 38)

Cowiche Creek 2 PCBs, DDE Fish tissue

Lower Yakima River (WRIA 37)

Yakima R. near Union Gap 5 DDT, DDE, DDD, alpha-BHC, PCBs Fish tissue 7 DDT, DDE, DDD, Chlorpyrifos, Endosulfan Water Yakima R. near Zillah 3 DDT, DDD, Dieldrin Fish tissue
Yakima R. near Granger 8 DDT, DDE, PCBs, Dioxin Fish tissue 2 DDT, Dieldrin Water

Yakima R. near Grandview 1 DDE Fish tissue 2 DDE, DDD Water

Yakima R. near Prosser 4 DDT, DDE, Chlordane, Dioxin Fish tissue 1 DDT Water
Yakima R. near Benton City 8 DDT, DDE, DDD, alpha-BHC, PCBs Fish tissue 5 DDT, DDE, DDD, Dieldrin, Endosulfan Water

Yakima R. near Horn Rapids 6 1 DDT, DDE, DDD, Dieldrin, alpha-BHC, PCBs Fish tissue DDE Water

Yakima R. near mouth 2 DDT, DDE Fish tissue

Yakima Tributaries: Wide Hollow Creek, Moxee Drain, Marion Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, Snipes Creek, Spring Creek 32 DDT, DDE, DDD, Dieldrin, Endosulfan, Chlorpyrifos Water

44 Total Fish Tissue Listings 50 Total Water Column Listings 94 Total Listings *Water Resources Inventory Area.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 7 Toxaphene, a chlorinated pesticide, is among the pollutants being addressed in this TMDL. All uses of this chemical were banned in 1990. Toxaphene is not curren tly 303(d) listed but was recently identified as a contamin ant of potential concern in Yaki ma River fish (Johnson et al., 2007). The report of this finding did not come in time for the 2008 303(d) list. Toxaphene shares many of the characteristics of othe r bioaccumulative pesticides and PCBs.

Detailed profiles including use, regulations, envi ronmental occurrence, a nd health effects of these chemicals have been prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry and are available at www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html

.

In addition to the toxic chemicals mentioned ab ove, the Yakima River basin has 303(d) listings for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and fecal coliform bacteria. 

## Pollutants Addressed by This TMDL

This TMDL project addresses the pollutants listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Pollutants Being Addressed in This TMDL.

Pollutant Upper Yakima Basin

(WRIA 39) Lower Yakima Basin

(WRIA 37) Naches River (WRIA 38)

Chlorinated Pesticides DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) X DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)* X X DDD (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)* X Dieldrin X Endosulfan X Chlordane X X Alpha-BHC (benzenehexachloride) X Toxaphene† X X Organophosphorus Pesticides Chlorpyrifos X PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) X X X *DDT breakdown product. †Not currently 303(d) listed.



### Suspended sediment and turbidity are also a focu s of this study. The previous TMDLs correlated these parameters with the occurrence of chlori nated pesticides and adverse effects on fish and other aquatic life. The TMDLs established numeric water quality targets and schedules to bring the Yakima River into compliance with the turb idity standards and certain of the pesticide criteria.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 8 Washington State standards do not provide numeric criteria for su spended sediment. However, elevated levels of suspended sediment increas e turbidity, and turbidity is addressed in the standards.

Exceedances of dioxin criteria in the Yakima Rive r are minimal. For this reason and because of limited Ecology resources, which extend beyond cost s and include staffing levels, dioxin will not be addressed in this TMDL. Dioxin will rema in on the 303(d) list of contaminants to be addressed in the Yakima basin in the future. Ec ology plans to address dioxins on a larger scale, possibly region- or state- wide. Because dioxins are often carr ied via air and can pollute sizeable areas not necessarily limited to watersheds, a la rger TMDL footprint will likely be more effective and efficient.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 9 

# Water Quality Standards

Designated Uses

Designated uses in Washington State include pub lic water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as recreationa l, agricultural, industrial, navi gational, and aesthetic purposes. Water quality criteria are designe d to protect the designated uses and are used to assess the general health of Wash ington surface waters and set permit limits.

Use designations for the upper Yakima River, lo wer Yakima River, Naches River, and their tributaries are listed in Appendix C.



## Toxics

Washington State’s aquatic life and human health criteria for the t oxic pollutants being addressed in this TMDL are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Washington State Water Quality Criter ia for 303(d) Listed Pesticides, PCBs, and Toxaphene in the Yakima River Basin (ng/L; parts per trillion).

Chemical Criteria for Protection Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Life (WAC 173-201A) of Human Health (EPA National Toxics Rule) Freshwater Freshwater Fish Fish & Water

Chronic Acute Consumption Consumption DDT - - - - 0.59 0.59 DDE - - - - 0.59 0.59 DDD - - - - 0.84 0.83 DDT and metabolites* 1.0 1,100 - - - - Dieldrin 1.9 2,500 0.14 0.14 Chlordane 4.3 2,400 0.59 0.57 alpha-BHC - - - - 13 3.9 Endosulfan 56 220 2,000 930 Chlorpyrifos 41 83 - - - - Toxaphene 0.2 730 0.75 0.73 PCBs 14 2,000 0.17 0.17 *The sum of DDT and metabolites DDE and DDD (i.e., total DDT). - - = no criteria.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 10 

## Aquatic Life

The aquatic life criteria are designed to protect for both short term (acute) and long term (chronic) effects of chemical e xposure. The criteria are prim arily intended to avoid direct lethality to fish and other aquatic life within th e specified exposure periods. The chronic criteria for PCBs and a number of the chlorinated pestic ides are to protect fi sh-eating wildlife from adverse effects due to bioaccumulation.

The exposure periods assigned to the acute criteria are expressed as: (1) an instantaneous concentration not to be exceeded at any time, or (2) a 1-hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average. The exposure periods for the chronic criteria are either: (1) a 24-hour average not to be exceeded at any time, or (2) a 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average. For 303(d) listing purposes, measurements of instantaneous concentrations are assumed to represent the averaging periods specified in the water qualit y standards for both acute and chronic criteria, unless additional measurements are available to calculate averages 

### (Ecology, 2006).

As indicated in Table 3, there are no aquatic life criteria spec ifically for DDT, its breakdown products DDE and DDE, or alpha-BHC. The “ DDT and metabolites” criteria apply to DDT, DDE, and DDD individually or in combination. In the present report, the sum of detected concentrations of DDT, DDE, and D DD is referred to as total DDT.



## Human Health

Criteria for the protection of human health are applied to the states through the EPA National Toxics Rule (NTR) (40 CFR 131.36(14). In fres hwater, the criteria ta ke into account the combined exposure of drinking the wa ter and eating fish that live in the water. In marine waters, human health criteria only consid er the effect of eating fish. The criteria protect against noncarcinogenic illness and keep the risk of deve loping cancer to a pre-specified level.

In Washington, the cancer risk is set such that no more than 1 in 1,000,000 people with full exposure would be likely to de velop cancer in respons e to that exposure. Full exposure is defined by a set of assumptions on body weight, fi sh and water consumption, and the number of years exposed. The risk is correlated to an av erage-weight adult consum ing 6.5 grams per day of fish (approximately 5 pounds per year), drinking 2 liters of water per day (if freshwater), and continuing this pattern for 70 years. For the chemicals of concern in the Yakima River, essentially all of the cancer risk is from fish consumption. People with higher or lower body weight and exposure patterns would face higher or lower risks. This basic exposure pattern is the same for both cancer-causing an d non-cancer-causing chemicals.

EPA has classed the pollutants of concern in this TMDL as probable human carcinogens, except for endosulfan and chlorpyrifos. The human he alth criteria for endosulfan are based on a reference dose that is unlikely to have appr eciable health risk. Th ere are no human health criteria for chlorpyrifos.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 11 The edible fish tissue criteria that apply to the Yakima River are shown in Table 4. These values are derived from the human health water quality criteria in Table 3 (fish and water consumption) and EPA bioconcentration factors (BCFs). BCF= C t 

### /C w 

### , where C t 

### is the contaminant concentration in fish ti ssue (wet weight) and C w 

### is the concentration in water

. The BCFs are taken from the EPA 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria documents ( www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/1980docs.htm ). The BCF predicts the chemical concentration in fish tissue that would be expected to result for a given concentra tion in the water column. In essence, the 303(d) fish tissue crit eria are the human health water quality criteria expressed in tissue form.

Table 4. Freshwater Edible Fish Tissue Criteri a for 303(d) Listed Pest icides, Toxaphene, PCBs, and Dioxin in Yakima River Fish (based on EPA National Toxics Rule; ug/Kg wet weight, parts per billion).

Chemical Fish Tissue Criteria DDT 32 DDE 32 DDD 45 Dieldrin 0.65 Chlordane 8.0 alpha-BHC 0.51 Endosulfan 251 Chlorpyrifos - - Toxaphene 9.6 PCBs 5.3 Dioxin 0.00007



## Turbidity

Turbidity is a measure of light refraction in water and can be us ed to estimate the amount of suspended sediment and other solids. Fish a nd other aquatic life are affected by suspended matter in the water column and sediment s that settle out on the bottom.

The effects of suspended sediment on fish and other aquatic life can be divided into five categories:

1. Acting directly on swimming ability. 2. Causing mortality or reducing their grow th rate, resistance to disease, etc. 3. Preventing the successful development of eggs and larvae. 4. Modifying natural movements and migrations. 5. Reducing the abundance of available food.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 12 Suspended sediment may also serve to transmit attached chemical and biological contaminants to waterbodies where they can be taken up in the ti ssues of fish. This can affect the health of humans or wildlife that eat the fi sh. Turbid waters also interfer e with the treatment and use of water as potable water supplies, and can interfere with the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of the water.

Turbidity is a focus of the existing Yakima Rive r suspended sediment TMDLs. The criteria state that: Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU a 

### over background turbidity when the background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or have more than a 10 % increase in turbidity when the background is more than 50 NTU . The criteria do not set a maximu m acceptable turbidity level based on beneficial use considerations, but they do limit the effect of an identified source on raising the turbidity in the receiving water. Background conditions are defined as ... the biological, chemical, and physical conditions of the water body, outside th e area of influence of the discharge under consideration . [WAC 173-201A-200; 2006 edition]

a nephelometric turbidity units

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 13 

# Watershed Description

Yakima River Basin

The Yakima River flows 215 miles out of Keechel us Lake in the Cascade Mountains to the Columbia River near Richland, draining an area of 6,155 square miles (Figure 2). The major population centers are, in downs tream order, Ellensburg (16, 542), Yakima (79,480), Toppenish (9,000), Sunnyside (14,710), and West Richland (10,210) . Much of the land that lies to the south of the lower Yakima River is within the Yakama Nation Reservation. Th e reservation occupies about 15% of the basin.

Most of the Yakima basin is in the Cascade ra in shadow. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 140 inches in the mountains to less than 10 inches in the eastern regions. The western part is mostly forested, while the eastern uplands are do minated by sagebrush and grass. The lowlands are farmed and intensively irrigated.

The upper basin includes the Kittitas Valley, an area around Ellensburg devoted primarily to hay, cereal crops, and irriga ted pasture. The lower basin is downstream of the Naches River confluence at river mile (r.m.) 116.3 in the city of Yakima. The lower Yakima Valley produces fruit, vegetables, grapes, other specialty crops such as hops and mint, dairy products, and beef. The lower Yakima River basin is one of the most intensively irrigated a nd agriculturally diverse areas in the United States.

The Kittitas and Yakima Valleys are separated by the Yakima River Canyon, an arid 20-mile reach between Ellensburg and Yakima. The canyon is generally considered to be part of the upper Yakima River.

Approximately one-half million acres are irrigated in the drainage. Most of the water is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Snowmelt and precipitation are held in six reservoirs on the upper Yakima and Naches Rivers and delivered to growers via rivers, creeks, and man-made canals. Water distribution fr om canals to farms is primarily managed by irrigation districts. USBR also manages the sy stem for flood control, power generation, and fishery management.

Irrigation is by one of three ge neral methods: furrow, sprinkler, or drip. Of these methods, furrow typically results in the most surface runoff from agricultural lands. Excess water is collected at the lower ends of fields and flows into drains that ultimately reach the Yakima River. Over the last several decades, irrigated land has been converted to sprink ler or drip irrigation, but rill and furrow is still used by many agricultural producers.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 14 Figure 2. Yakima River Basin.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 15 During the summer, return flows downstream from the city of Yakima account for 50 to 70% of the flow in the Yakima River (Fuhrer et al., 2004). Thus, for many water quality parameters, the quality of the ir rigation returns largely determines the quality of water in the lower Yakima River. While most of the dri nking water in the Yakima basin comes from wells, surface water provides drinking water for some ci ties such as Yakima (Naches River) and Cle Elum (upper Yakima River).



## Yakama Nation

The 1.2-million-acre Yakama Reservation lies betw een the lower Yakima River and the Cascade Range. A number of the tributaries and irrigati on returns that enter the Yakima River flow through or originate on the reservation.

Land within the Yakama Reservation is under the sovereign jurisdiction of the Yakama Nation. The Yakima River forms the reservation’s northern boundary from Ahtanum Creek at r.m. 106.9 in Union Gap to the Mabton-Sunnyside Bridge at r.m. 59.8.

Since the Yakima River was on the 303(d) list of threatened or impaired waterbodies, the state acted to improve and protect water quality by developing the existing TMDLs. Water quality scientists, technicians, and educators from the Yakama Nation, Ecology, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and other agencies have main tained a cooperative partnership to monitor conditions and promote appropria te water management practices . The approval and cooperation of the Yakama Nation is important to the success of continuing e fforts to clean up the river. 

## Streamflow and the Irrigation System

Peak runoff in the Yakima River normally occurs during snowmelt in April and May (Figure 3). Diversions to the irrigation canals begin in mid-March and end in mid-October, depending on water supply. Because of diversions, flow regula tion in the headwaters, and dry summers, some reaches of the Yakima have a low-flow period dur ing summer. Most irrigation returns have their low-flow periods in the winter, while many natural tributaries have low-flow periods in the late summer or fall.
Streamflow varies from year to year depending on snowfall. Th e snowpack is thought of as the "sixth reservoir" and is an integral part of the total wate r supply. "Storage control" is a term used to define the time when natural, unregulated fl ow in the river has ended and water supply is controlled by releases from the reservoirs. In a year with normal snowmelt and runoff, the system goes on storage control around June 20.

There are seven divisions in the USBR Yakima Pr oject: Storage, Kittitas, Tieton, Roza, Wapato, Sunnyside, and Kennewick. The Wapato Division is operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Storage dams and reservoirs in the project are Keechelus, Kach ess, and Cle Elum on the upper Yakima River, and Bumping Lake, Clear Lake, and Tieton Reservoir (Rimrock Lake) in the Naches River drainage. Other project f eatures are five diversion dams, canals
, laterals, pumping plants, drains, two power plan ts, and transmission lines.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 16 Figure 3. Monthly Average Flow in the Yakima River, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Granger Drain. (USGS data: Yakima @ Umtanum 1933-1977; Yakima @ Kiona 1933-2007; Sulphur Creek 1976-90; Granger Drain 1991-2003; http: //waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/sw.) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000Irrigation Returns (cfs)Mainstem (cfs) Yakima @ Kiona Yakima @ Umtanum Sulphur Creek Wasteway Granger Drain

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 17 Figure 4 is a schematic of the drainage, showing the relative position of selected tributaries, diversions, return flows, and other featur es of interest in the present study.

Figure 4. Relative Position of Selected Tributar ies, Diversions, Irrigation Returns, and Other Features on the Yakima River. Feature Inflow or Outflow River Mile Keechelus Lake 214.5

Kachess Lake 203.5 Cle Elum Lake 185.6

Wilson Creek 147.0 Umtanum Stream-gaging Station

‐‐ 

### 140.5 Roza Diversion Dam 127.9 Naches River 116.3 Roza Power Return 113.3 Wide Hollow Creek 107.4 Moxee Drain 107.3 Ahtanum Creek 106.9

Wapato Canal 106.7 Sunnyside Diversion Dam 103.8 Parker Stream-gaging Station

‐‐ 

### 103.7 Marion Drain 83.2 Granger Drain 82.8 Toppenish Creek 80.4 Satus Creek 69.6 Sulphur Creek Wasteway 61.0 Euclid Stream-gaging Station

‐‐ 

### 55.0 Chandler Diversion Dam @ Prosser 47.2 Spring Creek/Snipes Creek 41.8 Chandler Power Return 35.8 Kiona Stream-gaging Station

‐‐ 

### 29.9 Horn Rapids Diversion Dam 18.0 Columbia River Confluence

‐‐ 

### 0

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 18 Four hydrologic points of particular importance b 

### are:

1. Roza Diversion Dam (r.m. 127.9)

Located at the bottom of the Yakima River Cany on about 10 miles north of the city of Yakima, the Roza Diversion serves approximately 72,500 acres of irrigated land on the northeast side of the lower valley. About half of the water diverted to Roza Canal is used for hydropower generation and returned to the river with little change in pollutant loading at r.m. 113.3 in Yakima.

2. Naches River Confluence (r.m. 116.3)

The Naches River is a major tributary to the lowe r Yakima River. It meets the Yakima about 12 miles downstream of Roza Dam in Yakima. Th ere are several major tributaries and irrigation returns in the reach between the Naches confluence and Union Gap including Wide Hollow Creek, Ahtanum Creek, and Moxee Drain.

The Naches River supplies fairly high-quality wa ter. Since 1981, the contribution of the Naches and Yakima Rivers to the lower basin has been manipulated during the irrigation season to accommodate the needs of irrigators and fishery managers. In general, upper Yakima River reservoirs are used to meet June to August irri gation needs, while Naches River reservoirs are used for September and October. The “flip-flop” allows flow regimes in the upper Yakima River for spring chinook salmon egg survival.

3. Wapato and Sunnyside Valle y District Diversions (r.m. 103.8 and 106.7)

Located near Parker (r.m. 103.7), these two irrigation districts divert half to three-fourths of the water available below the city of Yakima. The Wapato Irriga tion Project diverts up to 2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to serve 136,000 acres of irrigated land on the Yakama Reservation. The Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (SVID) diverts up to 1,280 cfs to serve 103,500 acres between the river and Roza Irri gation District lands.

In many past years, nearly all of the water in the Yakima Ri ver mainstem was diverted for irrigation by the time it passed the SVID dive rsion, leaving the reach immediately downstream dewatered and nearly dry. This became a con cern among fishery and water resource managers. Instream flow limits were established in 1994, setting a minimum target of 300 cfs that would remain in the river and mainta in flow through fish ladders and around irrigation diversions.

The remaining 103 miles of Yakima River in the lower basin slowly reco ver some of the water diverted for irrigation through surface and subsu rface returns. The most numerous and largest tributaries and irrigation returns are located between Parker and the Euclid streamflow gauge near Grandview (r.m. 55.0). Major inflows to this reach are: Gra nger Drain, Marion Drain, Toppenish Creek, Satus Creek, a nd Sulphur Creek Wasteway. One additional large return, Spring Creek, is located downstream of Euclid below Prosser.

b This information taken from Joy and Patterson (1997), USBR Hydromet website www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/yakima.html , Coffin et al. (2006), and Morace et al. (1999).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 19 Chandler Diversion is a significant control point at Prosser. It creates the Prosser pool, a major change point in river morphology and hydrology. Th e Chandler Power Return is a large input of water between Spring Creek and Kiona.

4. Kiona (r.m. 29.9)

There is a long-term stream-gaging station at Kiona (Benton City). Upstr eam of this point, the majority of the large irrigation dive rsions and returns have occurred.

The Yakima River from Kiona to the mouth has a few additional diversions and returns, but no gaging station is located in the final 30-mile reach. The Columbia and Richland Canals are the most significant diversions. They occur at Horn Rapids (Wanawish) Dam (r.m. 18.0). The last significant irrigation return is Amon Wasteway at r.m. 2.1. 

## Previous Water Quality Studies

Yakima River water quality was investigated in the 1970s, with several studies evaluating sediment loading (CH2M Hill, 1975; Boucher, 1975; Soil Conservation Service, 1978; Corps of Engineers, 1978; Ecology, 1979; Nelson, 1979; Boucher and Fretwell , 1982; and Molenaar, 1985). This work showed irrigation practices directly affected susp ended sediment in the river. Peak concentrations occurred in April through June when streamflows were high and freshly tilled fields were being irrigate d. Suspended sediment loads began to increase rapidly below the confluence of Moxee Drain (r.m. 107), a major i rrigation return in Union Gap near Yakima.

In 1986, the Yakima River basin was selected as one of four surface-water pilot studies for the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (N AWQA) Program. Data collected from 1987-1991 provide a baseline characterization of suspended se diment, pesticides, nutr ients, trace elements, and aquatic life in Yakima River streams. A special NAWQA study was conducted in the Yakima during 1999-2000 to monitor water quality tre nds and evaluate transport of agricultural chemicals and their effects on stream ecosystem s. NAWQA results ar e reported by McKenzie and Curtiss (1989), Rinella et al . (1999), Morace et al. (1999) , Ebbert and Embrey (2002), Ebbert et al. (2002), Fuhrer et al. (2004), and others.

USGS concluded that “agricultu ral drains in the mid and lo wer valleys were found to be significant sources of nutrients, suspended sediment, pesticides, and fecal indicator bacteria.” NAWQA showed the highest detection frequencies and concentrati ons of pesticides generally occur during irrigation season. Thei r findings indicated pesticides th at persist in soil, such as DDT, continue to be transported in streams a nd drains throughout the year, especially during storm runoff or snowmelt.

Groundwater inputs are also poten tial pesticide sources, includ ing chlorinated pesticides normally associated with suspended sediment . DDT compounds, for example, have been detected in wells in the Toppeni sh and Sulphur subbasins of the lower Yakima River (Rinella et al., 1999). A recent Ecology study found the hi ghest dieldrin levels in Wide Hollow Creek near Union Gap occurred after th e irrigation season. Di eldrin was inversely correlated with

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 20 discharge and positively correlated with conductivity, suggesting s ubsurface flow is a source in this area (Johnson and Burke, 2006).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began r outine monitoring of organochlorine compounds in Yakima River fish in the 1970s (see Schmitt et al., 1990). They found high concentrations of several chlorinated pesticides in cluding DDT and dieldrin. PCBs were also detected. Ecology followed up on the pesticide findings in 1985 (Joh nson et al., 1986, 1988). A number of creeks and irrigation returns were identified as pestic ide sources. These include Wilson Creek in the upper Yakima basin and Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek in the lower Yakima basin.

NAWQA confirmed continue d high concentrations of total DDT in resident lower Yakima River fish (Rinella et al., 1993). Fish communities we re characterized as being severely impaired “associated with high levels of pesticides in fi sh tissues and the presence of external anomalies on fish.”

In 1993 the Washington State Department of H ealth (WDOH) issued an advisory that recommended limiting consumption of bottom fish from the lower Yakima River due to the high levels of total DDT (WDOH, 1993; www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/fish ). Because of the NAWQA studies and WDOH advisory, Ecol ogy prioritized suspended sediment TMDLs to reduce DDT and other pesticide loading to the Yakima River.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 21 

# Existing Yakima River TMDLs

A number of TMDLs have been approved or are underway in the Yakima River basin including TMDLs for fecal coliform bacteria, temperature, ammonia, chlorine, suspended sediment, and chlorinated pesticides ( www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/watershed/index.html ). The present 2007-08 study builds on results achieved through the two suspended sediment and chlorinated pesticide TMDLs, described below. 

## Lower Yakima River Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL

In 1998, a TMDL was established for suspended sedi ment in the lower Yakima River to bring it into compliance with water quality criteria for turbidity and DDT. The ba sic premise behind this TMDL was that suspended sediment from erosion of farm soils was the primary source of DDT and other chlorinated pesticides introduced to the river at levels that a dversely affected aquatic life and cause an increased health risk to people consuming fish. Suspended sediments – measured as total suspended solids (TSS) – also cause excessive turbidity in the Yakima River, its tributaries, and ir rigation returns.

The combined effects of high TSS, turbidity, and pesticides degrade fish and wildlife habitat. Threatened and endangered salmoni ds are a particular concern.

The field study for the Lower Yakima River Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL was conducted by Ecology during 1994-1995 (Joy a nd Patterson, 1997). The schedule adopted for meeting water quality targets developed through the TMDL is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of Lower Yakima River TMDL Schedule.

Year Target Applies To

2002 < 5 NTU* increase above background Mainstem 25 NTU Mouths of all tributaries and drains

2007 25 NTU All points within tributaries and drains Develop strategy to meet DDT human health criteria All tributaries, drains, and the mainstem 2012 † 7 mg/L TSS (to meet chronic aquatic life criterion) 2015 DDT human health criteria to be met in fish and water *nephelometric turbidity units. † target to be re-evaluated in 2007.



### According to the schedule, the lower Yakima Rive r mainstem was to be in compliance with the Washington State turbidity standa rd by 2002. Tributaries and irriga tion returns to the lower river were expected to meet a turbidity target of 25 NTU by 2007. A strate gy to further reduce DDT levels in the river and meet human health criter ia was to be developed the same year. By 2012, the mainstem and tributaries are to comply with a 7 mg/L target for TSS, which correlated with meeting the chronic aquatic life criterion for total DDT, 1 ng/L. This target was scheduled to be re-evaluated in 2007. By 2015 the human health cr iteria for DDT compounds are to be achieved in fish and water.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 22 

## Upper Yakima River Suspended Sediment and Organochlorine Pesticide TMDL

Ecology conducted a similar TMDL addressi ng suspended sediment and organochlorine pesticides in the upper Yakima River in 1999 (Joy, 2002; Creech and Joy, 2002). In this context, the upper river is the reach from the headwaters to r.m. 121.7, just above th e confluence with the Naches River.

The major water quality impacts to the upper Yaki ma River are from Wilson Creek, which drains the Kittitas Valley. The TMDL schedule for the upper Yakima set goals for meeting DDT, dieldrin, and turbidity criteria in 2006 and 2011 (Table 6).

Table 6. Summary of Upper Ya kima River TMDL Schedule.

Year Target Applies To

2006 DDT compounds and dieldrin to meet aquatic life criteria Cherry Creek and Wipple Wasteway DDT compounds to meet human health criteria in fish fillets Mainstem Monitor dieldrin in fish fillets to gauge progress toward meeting human health criteria Mainstem

90 th percentile turbidity < 10 NTU over background Mainstem (r.m. 121.7 – 139.8) and mouths of selected tributaries

2011 DDT compounds and dieldrin to meet human health criteria in water Mouths of Cherry Creek and Wipple Wasteway Substantial progress made toward meeting human health target for dieldrin in fish fillets Upper Yakima Basin

90 th percentile turbidity < 5 NTU over background Mainstem (r.m. 121.7 – 139.8) and mouths of selected tributaries

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 23 

# 2006 Yakima River Fish Tissue Survey

In view of the existing TMDL schedules and 20 04 303(d) listings, Ecolo gy surveyed chlorinated pesticide, PCB, and dioxin levels in resident fish species throughout the Yakima River in 2006 (Johnson et al., 2007). The objectives were to verify that human health criteria were not met (exceeded), assess progress toward the TMDL fish tissue targets, and help determine how to address the 303(d) listings. Fi fty-six composite fillet sample s and 30 composite whole fish samples were analyzed, representi ng approximately 300 individual fish.

Results for the chemicals of primary concern in the fish fillets are summarized in Table 7 and compared to the human health criteria for fi sh consumption used for 303(d) listing (from the EPA National Toxics Rule). Concentrations that exceeded criteria are highlighted in bold font. DDT, DDD, and endosulfan concentrations were low and did not approach criteria (data not shown). Most of the DDT residues have broken down to DDE. Chlorpyrifos was not analyzed due to limited potential for bioaccumulation. The complete edible tissue data from the fish tissue survey are in Appendix D.

There was a strong downstream trend in increasing concentrations of DDE, which is illustrated in Figure 5. Total PCB concentrations also in creased going downstream, but the trend appeared less pronounced than seen for DDE (Figure 6). High concentrations of both DDE and PCBs were found in lower river carp, a species not en countered in the upper ri ver. Dieldrin and toxaphene were primarily or exclusively detected in the lower river. Chlordane, alpha-BHC, and dioxin concentrations were lo w to undetectable in all areas.Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study FindingsPage 24Table 7. Mean Concentrations of Selected 303(d) Listed Compoundsand Toxaphene in Composite Fillet Samples* from Yakima RiverFish Collected in 2006(ug/Kg wet weight, parts per billion; except ng/Kg, parts per trillion, for dioxin).ReachSpeciesN =DDEDieldrinChlordaneAlpha-BHCTotal PCBsToxapheneDioxin†Upper Yakima RiverKachess LakeSucker 3 0.83 0.40 U 0.40 U 0.40 U 2.0 U NA 0.030UJPike Minnow 3 3.7 0.40 U 0.40 U 0.40 U16J NA 0.030UJKeechelus LakeSucker 3 2.2 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.40 U13J NA 0.030Pike Minnow 2 2.6 0.40 U 0.40 U 0.40 U17J NA 0.030UJKokanee 3 2.2 0.40 UJ 0.70 J 0.40 U15J NA 0.030UJCutthroat 3 0.61 0.39 U 0.23 J 0.40 U5.6J 2.0 U 0.030UJWhitefish 2 0.73 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.40 U9.6J NA 0.030UJCle ElumSucker 2 7.1 0.39 U 0.41 J 0.40 U9.5J 5.0 U 0.030UJPike Minnow 3 11 0.39 U 0.57 J 0.40 U 4.9 J 5.0 U 0.030UJWhitefish 3 10 0.40 UJ 2.0 J 0.40 U162.0 U0.15Yakima CanyonSucker 3 120.931.1 J 0.40 U9.4J 5.0 U 0.030UJPike Minnow 3 310.772.3 J 0.40 U242.0 U 0.030UJWhitefish 3340.35 J 2.9 J 0.40 U242.0 U 0.030UJLower Yakima RiverToppenishSucker 3630.99J 0.59 J 0.40 U135.0 U 0.03UJPike Minnow 31130.810.74 J 0.40 U167.0 0.03UJWhitefish 31001.3J 2.0 J 0.40 U28110.24ProsserSucker 31002.3J 0.68 J 0.39 U16J14J 0.03JSmallmouth Bass 2380.74J 0.39 U 0.39 U 4.0 J 8.4 J 0.03UJCarp 35000.59 J100.39 U8856J 0.03UJHorn RapidsSucker 3820.951.8 J 0.40 U3410J 0.03UJPike Minnow 3782.7J 0.56 U 0.40 U7.9J17J0.10JSmallmouth Bass 3540.790.99 U 0.39 U181.9 U 0.03UJCarp 35201.3J 5.3 J 0.40 U9655J 0.03UJ303(d) Human Health Criteria32 0.65 8.0 0.51 5.39.6 0.07Boldvalues exceed human health criteria.U = not detected. J = estimated value.UJ = not detected; detection limit isan estimate. NA = not analyzed.*4-5 fish per composite, except 8-15 for dioxin. †Dioxin analyzed in one composite per species per location.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 25 Figure 5. Mean DDE Concentrations in Ya kima River Fish Fillets Collected in 2006 (parts per billion, wet weight).

Figure 6. Mean Total PCB Concentrations in Yakima River Fish Fillets Collected in 2006 (parts per billion, wet weight).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 26 Overall, results of the 2006 fish tissue survey demonstrated the following:

 Upper Yakima River fish are meeting or very close to meeting human health criteria for DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin, chlo rdane, alpha-BHC, endosulfan, toxaphene, and dioxin.

 PCBs exceed human health criteria in the K eechelus and Kachess storage reservoirs and throughout the Yakima River, with slightly to substantially highe r levels in the lower river, depending on species and location.

 Most lower Yakima River fish species exceed hu man health criteria by factors of 2 to 4 for DDE and dieldrin, and factors of 2 to 6 for PC Bs. Carp are more contaminated than other lower river species. This is likely due to th eir greater fat content and age of the fish analyzed.

 Chlordane, alpha-BHC, and endosulfan are meeting human health criteria in lower river fish, except for carp which marginally exceed the chlordane criterion in the Prosser area.

 Dioxin levels are low throughout the river, slight ly exceeding human health criteria in a few

cases.

 Some lower river fish species exceed human health criteria for toxaphene. Toxaphene, a legacy chlorinated pesticide, is difficult to analyze and has probably been under-reported in the past.

Based on these findings, Ecology concluded that the TMDL effort to address the current Yakima River 303(d) listings should focus on pesticides and PCBs in the lower Yakima River, but include some PCB and toxaphene work in the upper river as well. A one-year field study was initiated in 2007 to obtain water qua lity data on these chemicals.

In view of the low dioxin concentrations in Ya kima River fish and due to budget constraints, dioxin was not analyzed in the water quality stud y. Ecology plans to addr ess dioxins on a larger scale (possibly region- or state- wide) in the future. Addition ally, because dioxins are often carried via air and can pollute sizeable areas not necessarily limited to watersheds, a larger TMDL footprint will likely be more effective and efficient.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 27 

# Goals and Objectives of the 2007-08 Water Quality Study

Goals

The water quality study was conduc ted to aid in developing a Pesticides and PCBs TMDL for the Yakima River. The goals of the study were to:

1. Identify current sources and quantify loadings of 303(d) listed pestic ides, PCBs, toxaphene, suspended sediment, and turbidity to the Yakima River.

2. Recommend numeric water quality targets that will result in the Yakima River and its tributaries and irrigation returns meeting Wa shington State water quality standards for the pollutants of concern.

3. Determine the Yakima River’s loadi ng capacity for these pollutants.

4. Compare existing water quality conditions to targets set by the Upper Yakima River Suspended Sediment and Organochlorine Pesticide TMDL and the Lower Yakima River Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL

. 

## Objectives

Specific objectives of the water quality study were to:

1. Monitor 303(d) listed pesticides, suspended se diment, and turbidity in the lower Yakima River, Naches River, and major lower river irrigation returns.

2. Obtain screening-level data on 303(d) listed pesticides, suspended sediment, and turbidity in other lower Yakima River tributaries and returns.

3. Estimate background concentrations of PCBs a nd toxaphene in the upper and lower Yakima River and identify source areas.

4. Investigate municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent as a potential source of 303(d) listed pesticides and PCBs.

5. Determine if wastewater from fruit packers a nd vegetable processors is a source of 303(d) listed pesticides.

6. Characterize 303(d) listed pesticide, PCB, suspended sedime nt, and turbidity levels in urban stormwater runoff.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 28 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 29 

# Study Design

The water quality study area include d the Yakima River and select ed tributaries and irrigation returns from Easton (r.m. 202.5) to the Columbia River confluence. Most of the effort was concentrated in the lower Yakima River due to the greater number of 303( d) listings and because a TMDL for suspended sediment and chlorinated pesticides had already been approved for the upper Yakima River. Table 8 gives an overvie w of the sampling design, showing the types of samples collected, general locations, sampling fr equency, and how the samples were analyzed.

Field work was initiated in April 2007 and comp leted in June 2008. Over 400 surface water and wastewater samples were collected. The samples were analyzed for all chlorinated pesticides and PCBs that have been reported in water, fi sh, or sediment samples from the Yakima River drainage. The chlorinated pesticide analysis was expanded to include chlorpyrifos, an organophosphorus insecticide. Suspended sediment (measured as total suspended solids) and turbidity were analyzed in all samples.

The study was conducted by the Ecology Environmental Assessment Program and Central Regional Office (CRO) Yakima River TMDL T eam. Samples were analyzed by the Ecology Manchester Environmental Laboratory or an a ccredited laboratory select ed by Manchester. The study followed a Quality Assurance Project Plan (Johnson, 2007a) prepared according to the Ecology guidance in Lombard and Kirchmer (2004).Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study FindingsPage 30Table 8. Summary of Sampling Design for the 2007-08 Water Quality Study.TaskLowerRiverUpperRiverLocation(Number of Sites)Frequency Pesticides PCBs Susp. Sediment Turbidity Conductivity Organic CarbonSurface WaterRoutine MonitoringxMainstem (4) Naches R. (1) Returns (4) 1-2 per MonthScreening SurveyxOther Tributaries and Returns (23) QuarterlySPMD Deployments†x x Mainstem (6) Naches R. (1) Returns (5) TwicePermitted DischargesWastewater Treatment Plants x x Cle Elum to West Richland (18)Quarterly*Fruit & Vegetable Processors xSelah, Yakima, Sunnyside, Prosser (6) QuarterlyUrban Stormwater Runoff x x Yakima (5) Ellensburg (4) 4-6 Storms** Pesticides not analyzed for upper river effluent or stormwater samples.†Semipermeable Membrane Device: a passive sampler used in this study for detecting PCBs and toxaphene.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 31 

## Surface Water

Pesticides, Suspended Sediment, and Turbidity

A two-tiered approach was used for measuri ng 303(d) pesticides, suspended sediment, and turbidity levels in surf ace waters of the lower Yakima River. Routine monitoring was conducted at mainstem stations, tributaries, and irrigation returns that were the focus of monitoring efforts for the earlier Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL . A more limited screening survey was conducted for other tributaries and returns deemed to have potent ial for contamination. Due to the high cost of detecting PCBs and toxaphene in whole water samples, these compounds were addressed in a separate effort (see PCBs and Toxaphene , page 36).

Routine Monitoring

Four mainstem stations, the Naches River, and f our major irrigation returns to the lower Yakima River were monitored intensively, twice a mont h during the irrigation se ason (April – October 2007 samples) and monthly during the winter (November 2007 – March 2008 samples). Table 9 lists the monitoring sites. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 7.

Table 9. Routine Monitoring Stations in th e Lower Yakima River Drainage during 2007-08.

Name and Location River Mile Bank* Yakima River at Harrison Bridge 121.7 - - Naches River at mouth 116.3 RB Moxee Drain at Birchfield Road 107.3 LB Yakima River at Parker Bridge 104.6 - - Granger Drain at sheep barns in Granger 82.8 LB Sulphur Creek Wasteway at Holaday Road 61.0 LB Yakima River at Euclid Bridge 55.0 -- Spring Creek near mouth 41.8 LB Yakima River at Kiona-Benton City Bridge 29.8 -- *signifies a right or left bank tribut ary, as seen facing downstream.



### The Yakima River at Harrison Bridge and the Naches River represent background water quality conditions for the lower Yakima. The Naches Ri ver supplies fairly high-quality water to the irrigation system and has relativel y few point sources. The Naches is the larger source of water to the lower Yakima River dur ing the September - October flip-flop when flows in the upper Yakima are reduced to prevent de-watering of salmon redds (nests). The mainstem Yakima River stations at Harrison, Parker, Euclid, a nd Kiona bracket the major irrigation returns and urban centers.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 32 Figure 7. Routine Monitoring Stations in the Lower Yakima River for 2007-08.

The four irrigation returns monitored – Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Su lphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek – were selected in the previous TMDL as repres entative of irrigation return water that enters the lower Yakima River. They ar e specifically identified as priority returns in the TMDL five-year targets. Snipes Creek, also on the 303(d) list, is a tr ibutary to Spring Creek.

The routine monitoring effort provided 14 sets of re sults for the irrigation season and five sets of results for the non-irrigation season. Extra weig ht was given to the irrigation season because pesticides are most frequently detected during this period. The previous TMDLs had concluded that the irrigation season was th e “critical period.” An extra se t of samples was collected from the four returns in late March at th e start of the 2008 irrigation season.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 33 Screening Survey

Numerous other tributaries and ir rigation returns enter the lower Yakima River but have either never been sampled for pesticides or the samples have not been analyzed down to human health criteria levels. Twenty-three of these discha rges were sampled on a quarterly basis for the present study, starting in May 2007 and ending in February 2008 (Table 10). Figure 8 shows their locations. This screening survey provided two sets of resu lts each for the irrigation and non-irrigation seasons.

Table 10. Lower Yakima River Tributaries and I rrigation Returns Screened for Pesticides during 2007-08.

Name and Location River Mile Bank*

Selah Creek at Canyon Road 123.7 LB Wenas Creek at Wenas Road 122.4 RB Selah Ditch at confluence w ith Taylor Ditch 117.1 RB Taylor Ditch at confluence with Selah Ditch 117.1 RB Cowiche Creek (Naches tributary) at Powerhouse Road - - - - Wide Hollow Creek at Main Street 107.4 RB Ahtanum Creek at Fullbright Park † 106.9 RB Zillah Drain at 1st Street, Zillah (Joint Drain 14.6) ~89 LB East Toppenish Drain at Annahat & Blue Heron Road † 86.0 RB Subdrain 35 at Connie Road † 83.2 RB Marion Drain at Indian Church Road † 82.6 RB Toppenish Creek at Indian Church Road † 80.4 RB Coulee Drain at Satus Longhouse Road † 77.0 RB Satus Creek at Satus Longhouse Road † 60.2 RB South Drain at Highway 22 † 69.3 RB DID #7 at Green Valley Road 65.1 LB Satus Drain #302 at Highway 22 † 60.2 RB Satus Drain #303 at Highway 22 † ~60 RB Drain #31 at Sunnyside-Mabton Highway 58.0 LB Grandview Drain at Chase Road 55.8 LB Wauna Ditch (Drain 52.8) at Wamba Road 47.2 LB Corral Canyon Creek at Old Inland Empire Highway 33.5 LB Amon Creek Wasteway near mouth 2.1 RB *signifies a right or left bank tribut ary, as seen facing downstream. † Yakama Reservation.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 34 Figure 8. Lower Yakima River Tributaries and I rrigation Returns Screened for Pesticides during 2007-08.

A large number of tributaries and returns were sc reened to avoid overlook ing significant sources of contamination. The sites selected for sa mpling were recommended by Joe Joy, Ecology’s lead investigator for the previous TMDL; the CRO Yakima River TMDL Team; and Marie Zuroske of the South Yakima Conservation District. Two of the creeks – Cowiche and Wide Hollow – are currently 303(d) listed for se veral pesticides. The same parameters were analyzed in the screening survey as in the r outine monitoring effort. Ecology obtained permission to collect samples from tributaries and returns on the Yakama Reservation.

Sample Collection and Analysis

Routine monitoring and screening survey samples were analyzed for pesticides at detection limits of sub-parts per trillion, mu ch lower than in previous Yakima River studies. The depthintegrating samplers often used in the past ar e not designed for low-level analyses. They are difficult to clean adequately and have an incr eased chance of introducing contamination in an agricultural setting. The surface water pesticide samples for the present study were composites from quarter-point transects co llected directly into appropria tely cleaned glass bottles.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 35 The bottles were raised and lowered through the water column to approximate the width-depth integrated method, either by hand or by placing a samp le bottle in a weighted holder. This same technique is being used by Ecology to monitor current-use pesticides in lower Yakima River irrigation returns (Burke et al., 2006). Suspended sediment and tu rbidity samples were collected using these same procedures, except for routin e monitoring samples duri ng the irrigation season (see Effectiveness Monitoring below).

Studies conducted in the Yakima River have shown that both sampling techniques produce similar results. Hallock (2005) compared TSS, turbidity, and other wate r quality data obtained for the Yakima River at Kiona using Ecology collected single- point surface grabs vs. USGS collected width-depth integrated samples. Only sediment measures were significantly different overall, and even for this constituent the differenc e was small. Hallock pointed out that some of the difference in sediment results was attributab le to the analytical method. The SSC analysis method used by USGS yields significantly highe r results than the TSS method used by Ecology, even when collection methods are the same.
A similar comparison was conducted for a range of sites sampled during the Lower Yakima River Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL. There were no significant di fferences between TSS or other results from simple grabs and in tegrated samples (Joy and Patterson, 1997).
The routine and screening surv ey samples from 2007-08 were an alyzed for 303(d) pesticides, TSS, turbidity, and conductivity. To differentia te between suspended matter derived from plant material vs. other sources, a to tal non-volatile suspended solids (TNVSS) analysis was included.
Pesticides analysis was by gas chromatography/ electron capture detectio n (GC/ECD). A large volume injection (LVI) technique was used to ac hieve low detection limits for comparison with human health criteria. Target compounds for pesticide analysis of surface water are listed in Appendix E.

Effectiveness Monitoring The routine monitoring task also provided data for effectiveness monitoring that was required in 2007 by the current TMDLs. The obj ective of effectivene ss monitoring is to determine if Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented in re sponse to the TMDL are achieving the required water quality improvements. E ffectiveness monitoring for the Lower Yakima River Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL was first conducted in 2003 and consisted of twice-a-month samples for TSS and turbidity throughout the irrigation se ason in the mainstem and priority irrigation returns (Coffin et al., 2006). A similar set of sa mples was collected in 2007. A depth-integrating sampler was used to be consistent with 2003 procedures.

The schedule for the Upper Yakima River Suspended Sedi ment and Organochlorine Pesticide TMDL called for effectiveness monitoring duri ng the 2006 irrigation season. Suspended sediment and chlorinated pesticide inputs from th e Wilson Creek drainage are the focus of that effort. The Kittitas County Water Purveyors, Kittitas County Conservati on District, and Ecology conducted the required suspended sediment a nd turbidity monitoring in 2006 (Anderson, 2008), but postponed pesticide monitori ng to 2007. These pesticide sample s were collected during field work for the present study and employed the sa me methods as in the lower river (Coffin and Johnson, 2007).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 36 Ecology’s Freshwater Monitoring Unit (FMU) conducted the 2007 effectiveness monitoring while assisting with the routine monitoring task. All of the data from the 2007 irrigation season that apply to effectiveness monitoring can be found in Appendix J. Reports evaluating the effectiveness of the existing TMDLs will be prepared separately by Ecology’s EAP Eastern Operations Section and CRO Yakima River TMDL Team. 

## PCBs and Toxaphene

PCBs and toxaphene are complex mixtures of hundreds of individua l compounds which are difficult and expensive to analyze at low leve ls. The project budget did not allow enough water samples to be analyzed to give representative results for surface water. Although toxaphene was analyzed in the routine monitoring and screening survey sample s, detection limits were high. Therefore, a passive sampling technique using a semipermeable membrane device (SPMD) was employed to provide estimates of PCB and t oxaphene concentrations in surface water.

A SPMD is composed of a thin-walled, layflat poly ethylene tube filled w ith triolein, a neutral lipid material (Figure 9). When placed in water, dissolved lip ophilic (fat soluble) compounds like PCBs and toxaphene diffuse through the memb rane and are concentr ated over time. The large chemical residues accumulated in a SPMD tran slate into detection limits down to parts per quadrillion in water. Because SPMDs meas ure the long-term average concentration of a chemical, random fluctuations are smoothed and representativen ess of the data improved. Studies have shown that chemical concentrations derived from SPMDs are comparable to other more complex low-level sampling methods such as solid-phase and liquid-liquid extraction, generally agreeing within a factor of 2 (Ellis et al., 1995; Rantal ainen et al., 1998; Hyne et al., 2004).

Figure 9. SPMD Membrane Mounted on a Spider Carrier.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 37 SPMDs were developed by the USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri and are now of standardized design, pate nted, and commercia lly available through Environmental Sampling Technologies (EST), St. Joseph, Missouri, ( www.est-lab.com/index.php ). Details of SPMD theory, cons truction, and applications can be found at wwwaux.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/spmd/index.htm and in Huckins et al. (2006).

Locations where SPMDs were used in the Yakima River are shown in Table 11. The samplers were deployed in both the upper and lower river because PCBs exceeded hu man health criteria in both areas.

Table 11. Sites Where SPMDs Were Deployed in the Yakima River Drainage during 2007.

Name and Location River Mile Bank*

Yakima River at Easton Diversion Dam 202.5 - - Yakima River above Ellensburg † 160.6 - - Wilson Creek near mouth 147.0 LB Yakima River at Roza Dam 127.9 - - Naches River at mouth 116.3 RB Moxee Drain at Birchfield Road 107.3 LB Yakima River at Sunnyside Diversion Dam 103.8 - - Granger Drain at sheep barns in Granger 82.8 LB Sulphur Creek Wasteway at Holaday Road 61.0 LB Yakima River at Prosser Diversion Dam 47.2 -- Spring Creek near mouth 41.8 LB Yakima River at Horn Rapids Diversion Dam 18.0 -- *signifies a right or left bank tribut ary, as seen facing downstream. † Ellensburg Water Company Diversion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 38 SPMDs were placed at three upper river sites (Fi gure 10). The Easton Diversion Dam site below Keechelus Lake and Kachess Lake was intended to provide an estimate of the PCB and toxaphene background in the upper mainstem. The other two upper river SPMDs were placed in a mainstem diversion above Ellensburg (Ellensb urg Water Company diversion) and at the mouth of Wilson Creek. Wilson Creek drains the Ellensburg area and Kittitas Valley. This is the most developed urban/agricultural area in the upper river and, thus, has the greatest potential to be a source of contamination.

Figure 10. Sites Where SPMDs Were Deploye d in the Upper Yakima River during 2007.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 39 The lower river SPMD sites were the same as or close to the routine monitoring stations (Figure 11). SPMDs were deployed at the Roza, Sunnyside, Prosser, and Horn Rapids diversion dams rather than the Harrison, Parker, Euclid, an d Kiona bridges, because these were not secure locations to leave the sample rs. In all cases, the SPMDs were placed above the dams.

Figure 11. Sites Where SPMDs Were Deploye d in the Lower Yakima River during 2007.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 40 SPMDs were deployed during the first part of the 2007 irrigation season (approximately May 8 – June 5) and again after the end of th e irrigation season (approximately October 30 – November 26). Figure 12 shows the flow re gime during these periods. The May-June deployment occurred while flows were decreasing in the Yakima River and increasing or near maximum in the tributaries and returns. The reverse was true during October-November after irrigation water had been turned off.

Figure 12. Monthly Average Flow n ear Selected SPMD Sites during 2007. (USBR Yakima Hydromet data www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/yakima )

Each deployment lasted approximately one month. Water samples were taken at the beginning, middle, and end of each deployment and analyzed for total and dissolved organic carbon (TOC and DOC). The organic carbon data were used to calculate total wa ter column concentrations for the chemicals of interest. Start and end dates for each site are in Appendix F. The ancillary water quality data are in Appendix G.
The Wilson Creek SPMD extract for PCB analysis from May-June 2007 was lost in a laboratory accident and re-deployed in 2008 during the same time period. Toxaphene analysis was not affected. A review of water quality data for Wilson Creek, provided by the Kittitas County Water Purveyors, showed slightly hi gher turbidity during the 2008 deployment, averaging 21 NTU vs. 15 NTU in 2007 (N= 4-5; Kathleen Satnik personal communication). Discharge compared closely between the two periods, averaging 545 vs. 556 cfs.
The SPMDs extracts were analyzed for PCBs using high resolution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (HRGC/MS) to achieve low dete ction limits. Toxaphene was analyzed by GC/ECD. The methods used to derive wate r column concentrations from the PCB and toxaphene residues accumulated in the SPM Ds are described in Appendix H. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecTributaries (cfs)Yakima River (cfs) Yakima nr Umtanum Yakima nr. Parker Yakima @ Kiona

Wilson Cr. Moxee Drain Sulphur Cr.

Spring Deployment Fall Deployment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 41 

## Permitted Discharges

One of the mechanisms for achieving goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). EPA has authorized Washington State to administer the NPDES permit program in Washington. Chap ter 90.48 RCW defines Ecology's authority and obligations in issuing wastewater discharge permits. An NPDES permit must be issued before discharge of wastewater to waters of the state is allowed. The permits establish effluent limits, monitoring schedules, and other requirements.

Three types of municipal/industr ial wastewater discharges that come under NPDES are potential sources of pesticides and PCBs to the Yakima River: municipal wastewater treatment plants, fruit packers and vegetable processors , and urban stormwater runoff.


## Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent is not often analyzed for pe sticides or PCBs at levels approaching human health criteria. In the several instan ces where this has been done in other parts of Eastern Washingt on, results have shown water quali ty criteria are often not met (exceeded) for PCBs, but infrequently or not subs tantially exceeded for pesticides (e.g., Lubliner, 2009; Johnson et al., 2004; Serdar, 2003).

In August 1999, USGS analyzed pe sticides and PCBs in seven m unicipal WWTPs that discharge to the Yakima River between Cle Elum and Pro sser (Ebbert and Embrey, 2002). Except for trace amounts of lindane, chlorinated pesticides were not found at detection limits down to 1-4 ng/L (parts per trillion). PCBs were not detected at or above 100 ng/L. The human health criteria are considerably lower than the le vels analyzed: <1 ng/L for mo st pesticides and 0.17 ng/L for PCBs.

Twenty-one c 

### municipal WWTPs currently discharge to the Yakima River or its tributaries (Table 12, Figure 13). Final effluents from 18 of these facilities were monitored on a quarterly basis for the 2007-08 water quality study. The three remaining WWTPs — Wapato, Harrah, and Toppenish — are on the Yakama Reservation and under EPA jurisdiction. These facilities were not sampled.

The effluent samples were collected as composite s taken over a two-day period. Effluent data obtained by Ecology at other WWTPs have shown little variation in PCB concentrations over two days (Golding, 2002). Each composite consiste d of four grabs: two in the morning and two in the afternoon. Effluent flow is greater in the morning, but the e ffluent is more concentrated in the afternoon. The grabs were ha nd collected to avoid contamina tion that could occur with an automatic sampler.

c Moxee WWTP ceased operating on June 26, 2008; th e wastewater now goes to the Yakima WWTP.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 42 Table 12. Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Yakima Basin.

Permit No. Facility Name NPDES Permit Expires Receiving Water Average Flow Maximum

Month (MGD) Upper Yakima River

WA002193-8 Cle Elum 31-Aug-11 Yakima River at ~ r.m. 183 3.6 WA-002125-3 Kittitas 29-Feb- 12 Cooke Creek to Wilson Creek 0.45 WA-002434-1 Ellensburg 30-Nov-10 Ya kima River at r.m. 151.6 8.0

Lower Yakima River

WA0021032C Selah 29-Feb-12 Selah Ditch to Yakima R. at r.m. 117.1 2.0 WA0022586C Naches 30-Nov-12 Naches River 0.17 WA0052396A Cowiche 31-Mar-13 North Fork Cowiche Creek 0.44 WA0024023C Yakima 30-Jun-11 Yakima River at r.m. 110.1 21.5 WA0022501C Moxee † 31-Oct-07 DID #11 to Moxee Drain 0.15 WA0050229 Wapato* 31-Mar-10 Drainage Way #2 to Yakima River NA WA0052132C Buena 31-Aug-11 Unnamed trib to Yakima R. at r.m. 91.7 0.12 WA0022705 Harrah* 30-Sep-11 Harah Drain to Yakima River 0.055 WA0020168C Zillah 31-Oct- 11 Yakima River at r.m. 89.5 0.49 WA0026123 Toppenish* 25-Nov-08 Toppenish Drain to Yakima River 1.9 WA0022691C Granger 31-Oct-13 Yakima River at r.m. 82.8 0.32 WA0020991C Sunnyside 30-Sep-13 Sulphur Cr. via Tributary 3.0 WA0052426A Port of Sunnyside** 28-Feb-10 Join t Control Drain 33.4 to Sulphur Cr. 0.55 WA0020648C Mabton 30-Apr-12 Yakima River at r.m. 59.7 0.19 WA0052205B Grandview 30-Nov-08 Yakima River at r.m. 55.2 5.0 WA0020800D Prosser 31-Oct-11 Yakima River at r.m. 46.5 1.8 WA0051349C Benton City †† 30-Nov-13 Yakima River ~r.m. 19 0.32 WA0051063C West Richland 31-Oct-12 Yakima River ~r.m. 9 0.75 *Yakama Indian Reservation; not sampled for present study. MGD = million gallons per day. † ceased operating in June 2008. NA = not available. **can land apply February through October. †† discharges to Yakima River only during cold weather months.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 43 Figure 13. Wastewater Treatment Pl ants in the Lower Yakima River Basin.

The LVI procedure used for pesticides in surf ace water works poorly on WWTP effluent due to the presence of numerous interf ering substances. Therefore, pe sticides were analyzed in the effluent samples using solid phase extraction (SPE), a less sensit ive technique. Reporting limits were approximately 2-5 ng/L for 303(d) pestic ides and approximately 25 ng/L for toxaphene, higher than some of the water quality criteria. As a result, this effort constitutes a screeninglevel assessment of 303(d ) pesticides and toxaphene in WWTP di scharges to the Yakima River.

Because data from other WWTPs su ggest PCBs are a greater concern than pesticides, PCBs were analyzed by HRGC/MS to achieve detection limits consistent with the hu man health criteria. Effluent samples from the Cle Elum, Ellensbu rg, and Kittitas WWTPs were not analyzed for pesticides, since a TMDL has already been estab lished for these compounds in the upper Yakima River,

Target compounds for WWTP effluent are listed in Appendix I. Ancillar y parameters included TSS, turbidity, and conductivity. Flow da ta were obtained from WWTP records.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 44 

## Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors

Process water discharged from fruit packers and vegetable processors is a potential link between agricultural land that harbors pest icide residues and the Yakima River. Dust and soils that may contain pesticides are washed or otherwise re moved from fruits, vegetables, and transport containers during processing and washed into wast ewater systems. DDT, for example, has been detected in process water at fruit packing f acilities in the Okanogan area (Gary Struthers Associates, 2005)

Of the many fruit packers and vegetable proc essors in the lower Yakima Valley, only six discharge directly to surface waters (Table 13, Figure 14). This excludes those which discharge non-contact cooling water. All other facilities route their effluent to WWTPs or land apply.

Process water from the six facilities listed below was collected quarterly using the same techniques as for the WWTPs. The samples were analyzed for pesticid es (Appendix E), TSS, turbidity, and conductivity. Because of the increas ed potential for pesticides being present in these effluents, the samples were analyzed by LV I to achieve low detection limits. These types of facilities are not known to be PCB sources. Th erefore, PCBs were not analyzed. Flow data were obtained from each facility.

Table 13. Fruit Packers and Vegetabl e Processors Monitored during 2007-08.

Permit No. Company / Facility Name Location Receiving Water

WAG 43-5126 Zirkle Fruit / Harrison Plant Selah Ditch to Taylor Ditch to Yakima River WAG 43-5160 Apple King LLC / Apple King Facility Yakima Gleed Ditch to Naches River WAG 43-5074 Gilbert Orchards Ditch to Stock Watering Pond WA-000056-6 Snokist Growers / Terrace Heights Cannery Yakima River at r.m. 113.0

WAG 43-5054 Andrus & Roberts Produce Sunnyside SVID Ditch to Yakima River

WA-002175-0 ConAgra Foods – Lamb Weston* Prosser Yakima River at r.m. 47.0

*Scheduled to close in May 2010; formerly Twin City Foods.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 45 Figure 14. Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors Monitored in the Lower Yakima River Basin during 2007-08.



## Urban Stormwater Runoff

In 2006, Ecology issued a draft version of the Ph ase II Municipal Stormwater Permit for Eastern Washington for public comment. The final permit became effective February 16, 2007. By EPA mandate in November 2002, a TMDL must addr ess the pollutant loads from NPDES permitted stormwater discharge. Stormwater runoff can accumulate and transport pollutants such as pesticides, PCBs, and sediment via the stormwat er conveyance system to receiving waters and thereby degrade water quality. The occurrence of these types of contaminants has been documented in several stormwater studies in othe r parts of Eastern Washington (Lubliner et al., 2006; Serdar et al., 2006; Parsons, 2007). Some of these data are presented later in this report.

Phase II communities are identified under the rule as jurisdictions that: (1) own and operate a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), (2 ) discharge to surface wate rs, (3) are located in urbanized areas, and (4) have a population of greater than 10,000 and less than 100,000. Yakima basin cities that come under Phase II are El lensburg, Selah, Yakima, Union Gap, urbanized portions of Yakima County, Sunnyside, West Ri chland, and Richland. Richland has one or two storm drains that run to the Ya kima River and others that connect to Amon Creek Wasteway, but West Richland discharges to an irrigation canal that goes to the Columbia River near Finley.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 46 Within the limited wet-weather season covered by the water quality study, it was impractical to obtain stormwater samples from all these cities. Eastern Washington storms usually have very little onset rainfall and a short dur ation single peak. The storms are also geographically sporadic. Low rainfall in Sunnyside and Richland, for exam ple, makes it extremely difficult to catch storms. Therefore, stormwater sampling for the water quality study focused on characterizing pollutant levels in runoff from the Yakima/U nion Gap and Ellensburg urban areas, with the intent of applying the results to other Phas e II stormwater communities in the TMDL.

Eight storm events were captured during the winter and spring of 2007-08. Two to five storm drains were sampled each time in Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg (Figures 15 and 16). To the extent possible, the drains sampled repres ented typical urban, commercial, and residential land uses. The field study for the Yakima Area Creeks Fecal Coliform TMDL identified a number of potential sampling sites around Yaki ma (Joy, 2005). The drains sampled in the present study were selected in consultation with the cities of Yakima and Ellensburg.

Storm duration and intensity are likely the grea test factors in generating pollution. However, logistical restrictions effectively reduce most sampling efforts to grabs or manual composites at any given period during a storm. The stormwat er samples for the present study consisted of either single grabs or a compos ite of two grabs collected 10-40 minutes apart, depending on the anticipated duration of stormwater influx. Ma ny of these drains flow year-round, with base flows likely supplied by groundwater input. Sampling was delayed until turbid water began to flow.

The stormwater samples were analyzed for pe sticides (SPE, Appendix I), PCBs (HR GC/MS), TSS, turbidity, and conductivity. The Ellensburg samples were not analyzed for pesticides due to the existing TMDL for these compounds.

Stormwater comes under NPDES regulation in three additional areas: Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT), constr uction projects, and i ndustrial facilities.

DOT highways and facilities are required to be covered under a MS4 permit. DOT controls the major roads and highways through the urbanized ar eas of the Yakima basin (e.g., U.S. Highways 97 and 12, Interstate 82, and State Route 24). Hi ghway surfaces are significant contributors to stormwater runoff volume, but are not known to be significant sources of any of the 303(d) listed pesticides or PCBs.

The NPDES Construction Stormwater General Perm it covers soil disturbance for projects of one acre or more. These types of activities are potentia l sources of pesticides or PCBs when building on farm land or ground that has been otherwise contaminated. While no specific sampling was conducted for construction sites, the stormwater samples would include contributions from ongoing construction within the ur ban areas being monitored.

Fifteen industries in the Yakima basin fall under the NPDES Industria l General Stormwater Permit. These include fruit packers, vegetable processors, manufacturing companies, industrial parks, log yards, air carriers, and transit. Sel ected fruit packers and vegetable processors were monitored through their wastewater . The other types of industrie s are not known as sources of pesticides or PCBs and thus were not monitored.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 47 Figure 15. Location of Yaki ma and Union Gap Storm Drains Sampled during 2007-08.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 48 Figure 16. Location of Ellensburg Storm Drains Sampled during 2007-08.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 49 

## Number of Samples

The approximate number and timing of samples collected for each task in the Yakima River pesticides and PCBs water quality study is shown in Table 14.

Table 14. Number of Samples Collected for the 2007-08 Water Quality Study.

Task Approximate Number of SamplesAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJune SubTotal

Surface Water Routine Monitoring 18 18 18 18 18 18 9 9 9 9 9 13 166 Screening Survey 22 22 22 22 88 SPMD Deployments 12 12 24 Permitted Discharges Wastewater Treatment Plants 18 18 18 18 72 Fruit & Vegetable Processors 6 6 6 6 18 Urban Stormwater Runoff 5 8 7 5 3 28 Total = 396



## Other Sources of Contamination

A variety of other potential source s of 303(d) listed pesticides a nd PCBs exist within the Yakima River basin. These include, but are not limited to, landfills, illegal dumpsites, hazardous waste sites, toxic cleanup sites, and pesticide handling facilities that will fall under regulations other than the Water Quality Laws to investigate and st op discharge if and when they are identified as potential sources of water pollution.

It was beyond the scope of this water quality st udy to investigate all of these sources. For purposes of the TMDL, they will be cons idered part of the nonpoint load.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 50 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 51 

# Field Procedures

Sample containers, preservation, and holding times for the water samples collected during this project are shown in Table 15. A detailed descrip tion of procedures for collecting each type of sample follows.

Table 15. Field Procedures for Water Samples.

Parameter Minimum Sample Size Container Preservation Holding Time Pesticides (LVI) 1 gallon 1 gal. glass; Teflon lid Cool to 4 o C 7 days Pesticides (SPE) 1 liter 1 L amber glass; Teflon lid Cool to 4 o C 7 days

PCBs 1 liter 1 L amber glass; Teflon lid Cool to 4 o C 1 year TSS/TNVSS 1,000 mL 1 L poly bottle Cool to 4 o C 7 days Turbidity 100 mL 500 mL poly bottle Cool to 4 o C 48 hours Organic Carbon 50 mL 60 mL poly bottle HCl to pH<2, 4 o C 28 days Conductivity 300 mL 500 mL poly bottle Cool to 4 o C 28 days LVI = large volume injection (low detection limits). SPE = solid phase extraction (routine detection limits).



## Surface Water

Routine Monitoring and Screening Survey

The routine monitoring a nd screening survey samples were co llected by hand in one-liter, amber glass, narrow-mouth bottles, cleaned to EPA ( 1990) quality assurance/qu ality control (QA/QC) specifications. Bridge samples were taken by plac ing the bottle in a metal holder that orients the mouth of the bottle upstream and lowering the sampler on a line. Wadeable streams were sampled by hand. The samples were taken as com posites from a quarter-point transect across the width of the stream. The sample bottle was lowered and raised through the water column to obtain a depth integrated sample. Grabs from each transect were composited into appropriate sample containers for pesticides, TSS, turbid ity, and conductivity. A new bottle was used for each sample site.

A number of the TSS and turbidity samples co llected during the irrigation season were also intended for TMDL effectiveness monitoring. These samples were taken using depth- and width-integrating procedures c onsistent with the previous e ffectiveness monitoring effort (Coffin et al., 2006). Deepwater sites were sa mpled with a US-DH-59 or a US-DH-76 attached to a rope. A US-DH-81 sampler was used for wa deable streams. Three verticals representing equal widths of the stream cross-section were sampled.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 52 Where required, streamflow was measured us ing a Swoffer Model 2100 or Marsh-McBirney Model 201 meter and top-setting rod. The lat itude and longitude of each sampling site was recorded from a global positioning system (GPS) receiver.

All water samples were placed on ice, returned to Ecology Headquarters (HQ), and held in a secure cooler for later transport with chain- of-custody record to the Ecology Manchester Environmental Laboratory. 

## Semipermeable Membrane Devices

Deployment and retrieval procedures for SPMDs followed standard operating procedures of the Ecology EA Program (Johnson, 2007b). Standard SPMDs (91 x 2.5 cm membrane containing 1 mL triolein) and the stainless steel canisters (16.5 x 29 cm) and spindl e devices that hold the membranes during deployment were obtained from Environm ental Sampling Technologies (EST). The SPMDs were preloaded onto the spi ndles by EST in a clean room and shipped in solvent-rinsed metal cans under argon atmosphere. The SPMDs were kept frozen until deployed. , to await On arriving at the sampling site, the cans were pr ied open, spindles slid in to perforated stainless steel canisters, and the device anc hored and tethered in the stream . Field personnel wore nitrile gloves and did not touch the membranes. Water samples for total and dissolved organic carbon (TOC, DOC) were collected at the begi nning, midpoint, and end of each deployment.

The SPMDs were deployed for approximately one month, as recommended by USGS and EST. The retrieval procedure was e ssentially the opposite of deployment. The cans holding the SPMDs were carefully sealed and the SPMDs ma intained at or near freezing for next day shipment to EST for extraction. Chain-of-custody was maintained.



## Wastewater Treatment Plants

The WWTP samples were composites of the final effluent. Each composite consisted of two grabs per day (morning and afternoon) for two days.

The grabs were taken with 1-liter amber glass bottles, cleaned to EPA (1990) QA/QC specifications, and split into appropriate sample containers (Table 13). A new 1-liter bottle was used for each sample. The samples were kept on ice and in the dark during the compositing period.

The effluent samples were returned to Ecology HQ a nd held in a secure cooler for later transport with chain-of-custody record to Manchester Labo ratory. Manchester packaged the PCB samples and shipped them to an accredited contract labo ratory for HR GC/MS analysis. The remaining samples were analyzed at Manchester.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 53 

## Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors

Sample collection and handling for fruit packer and vegetable processor effluents followed the same procedures used for WWTPs, ex cept PCB samples were not taken.



## Stormwater

Pesticide, PCB, TSS, turbidit y, and conductivity samples were co llected as simple grabs or composites of two grabs collected over a 15-minut e period during the early part of the storm. Pesticide samples were not collected for Ellens burg. Samples were taken directly into the appropriate container (Table 15) an d kept on ice at all times.

The stormwater samples were returned to Ecol ogy HQ and held in a secure cooler for later transport with chain-of-custody record to Manchester Laboratory. Manchester packaged the PCB samples and shipped them to an accredited c ontract laboratory for HR GC/MS analysis. The remaining samples were analyzed at Manchester.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 54 

# Laboratory Methods

Table 16 shows sample preparati on, analysis methods, and laborat ories used in this study.

Table 16. Laboratory Methods for Water Samples.

Analysis Sample Preparation

Method Analytical Method Laboratory

Surface Water Pesticides EPA 3510M LVI*/EPA 8081 Manchester TSS N/A EPA 160.2 Manchester TNVSS N/A SM 2540E Manchester Turbidity N/A EPA 180.1 Manchester Conductivity N/A EPA 120.1 Manchester TOC/DOC N/A EPA 415.1 Manchester SPMDs Toxaphene dialysis/GPC † EPA 8081 EST/Manchester

PCBs dialysis/GPC † EPA 1668A Pace WWTP Effluent Pesticides EPA 3535M (SPE**) EPA 8081M Manchester

PCBs EPA 1668A EPA 1668A Pace, Test America, Pacific Rim TSS N/A EPA 160.2 Manchester Turbidity N/A EPA 180.1 Manchester Conductivity N/A EPA 120.1 Manchester Fruit &Vegetable Effluents Pesticides EPA 3510M LVI/EPA 8081 Manchester TSS N/A EPA 160.2 Manchester Turbidity N/A EPA 180.1 Manchester Conductivity N/A EPA 120.1 Manchester Stormwater Pesticides EPA 3535M (SPE) EPA 8081M Manchester PCBs EPA 1668A EPA 1668A Pace, Pacific Rim TSS N/A EPA 160.2 Manchester Turbidity N/A EPA 180.1 Manchester Conductivity N/A EPA 120.1 Manchester *large volume injection. † EST SOPs E14, E15, E19, E21, E33, E44, E48. **solid phase extraction.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 55 

# Data Quality Assessment

Data Review and Verification

The Ecology Manchester Laboratory reviewed the chemical data for this project. For results generated by Manchester, final da ta review was performed by the unit supervisor or an analyst experienced with the method. Chemists on th e Manchester Laboratory staff performed the review for analytical work sub-contracted to commercial laboratories. Quality assurance and quality control at Manchester are described in the Lab Us ers Manual (Ecology intranet: http://aww.ecologydev/programs/eap/forms/labmanual.pdf ).

Manchester prepared written case narratives assessing the quality of all data collected. These reviews include a descrip tion of analytical methods and an assessment of holdi ng times, initial and continuing calibration and degradation checks, method blanks, surrogate recoveries, internal standard recoveries, matrix spike recoveries , laboratory control samples, and laboratory duplicates. The reviews and the complete Manchest er data reports are ava ilable from the author on request.

A Quality Assurance Project Plan (Johnson, 2007a) established measuremen t quality objectives (MQOs) for accuracy, bias, and reporting limits. To determine if MQOs were met, the project lead compared results on field and laboratory quality control samples to the MQOs. To evaluate whether the reporting limit targets were met, the results were examined for non-detects and to determine if any values exceeded the lowest concentration of inte rest. Based on these assessments and a review of the laboratory data packages and Manchester’s data verification reports, the data were either accepted, accepted w ith appropriate qualifica tions, or rejected and re-analyzed or re-sampled where possible.

In the present report, qualifie d data are flagged as follows:

 U = The analyte was not detected at or a bove the reported sample quantitation limit.

 UJ = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is a pproximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately measure the analyte in the sample.

 J = The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical valu e is the approximate concentration of the anal yte in the sample.

 N = The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.

 NJ = The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified, and the associated numerical value repres ents its approximate concentration.

 E = Reported result is an estimate becau se it exceeds the calibration range.

 REJ = The sample results are rejected due to seri ous deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 56 

## Field Blanks

Transfer blanks and bottle blanks were analyzed to detect contamination arising from sampling procedures. The blanks were prepared in the fi eld using sample bottles filled with blank water at the analyzing laboratories. The transfer blanks were prepared by pouri ng the blank water into new sample containers. The bottle blanks were carried through the survey unopened. All field blank results are included in the data appendices.

Pesticides were not detected in any of the fi eld blanks, except for one instance of a trace of endosulfan sulfate. Endosulfan sulfate has never been shown to be a chemical of concern in the Yakima River.

PCBs were detected in the field blanks asso ciated with WWTP effluent and stormwater sampling. The levels were similar in both the bo ttle and transfer blank indicating the sampling method was not contributing additional PCBs to th e samples. Because the blank water is not used in analyzing the samples, the field blanks do not indicate contamination at the laboratory, which is assessed with method blanks. Only th ose PCB compounds detected at greater than 10 times the method blank were included in the PC B concentrations reported here for effluent, stormwater, and SPMD samples.

Because SPMDs sample vapors while being exposed to air, field blanks were needed to assess chemical accumulation during deployment and re trieval. The SPMD field blank consisted of five membranes in an argon-filled stainless steel can. It was exposed to the air for the average amount of time it took to open and place the SPMDs in the water, typically one to three minutes. The blank was then resealed and refrozen. It was taken back into the field and opened and closed again to mimic the retrieval process. The blank was prepared, processed, and analyzed the same as deployed SPMDs. There were two field blanks for each sampling period, one in the upper reaches of the Yakima River at Easton and one in the lower Yakima River at Sulphur Creek Wasteway.

A PCB background was present in the SPMD field blanks. It appeared to have originated at EST laboratory where the membranes were prepared. Because the PCB levels agreed closely among the field and laboratory blanks (i.e., within 4%), the average of the field blank values was subtracted from the samples before calculating final water column PCB concentrations. Toxaphene was not detected in th e blanks. The results for the SPM D field blanks are in the data appendices. 

## Replicate Samples

Field replicate samples were collected to provide estimates of the total variability (field + laboratory) associated with the data generated in this study. Th e replicates were collected in pairs within a few minutes of each other. Fo r SPMDs, the replicates consisted of separate samplers deployed in the same vicinity. Sites for replication were rota ted through the study area to cover a range of analytes and co ncentrations. One or two sets of replicates were analyzed with every sample collection, except every few months for routine pesticide monitoring. The results are in the data appendices.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 57 The relative percent difference between replicates fo r the constituents of primary interest in this study is summarized in Table 17. For pesticides, T SS, and turbidity, the rep licates agreed within 30% or better in most cases. Greater variability was encountered for PCBs, 33-66%. In terms of PCB concentrations, this translates into a difference of about a factor of 2 or less. Overall, the most variable results were obtai ned on organic compounds in stor mwater. The complete results on replicate samples are in the data appendices.

Table 17. Mean Relative Percent Difference* Between Replicate Field Samples Analyzed during the 2007-08 Water Quality Study. Sample Type N= DDE Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan Surface water (routine monito ring) 12 6% 12% 10% 7% Surface water (screening survey) 8 11% 8% 34% 29% SPMDs 3 31% 17% 12% 11% WWTP effluent 6-8 ND ND 18% 4% Fruit and Vegetable effluent 4 2% 19% 32% 22% Stormwater 4-6 19% 22% 47% 25% Sample Type N= Total PCBs Toxaphene TSS Turbidity Surface water (routine monitoring) 12 NA ND 11% 10% Surface water (screening survey) 8 NA ND 25% 14% SPMDs 3 35% 6% NA NA WWTP effluent 6-8 42% ND 2% 14% Fruit and Vegetable effluent 4 NA ND 7% 16% Stormwater 4-6 66% 4% 18% 8% *difference between replicates as perc ent of replicate average. NA = not analyzed. ND = not detected.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 58 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 59 

# Results of the 2007-08 Water Quality Study

Water Supply

In describing conditions in the Yakima River, Fuhrer et al. (2004) cautioned that water availability and dilution effects must be considered when compar ing water quality between years or examining findings from a particular year. St reamflows in the basin vary from year to year depending on snowfall, snowmelt, and how the irrigation system is operated.

Figure 17 shows the flow in the lower Yakima River at Kiona while the 2007-08 water quality study was being conducted. Kiona is located at Benton City, about 30 miles upstream of the Columbia River. The 2007-08 data are compared to the average daily flow at this site from 1933 to 2007. This period dates back to when the last of the six storage dams at the headwaters of the Yakima and Naches Rivers was completed.

Figure 17. Historical Flow in the Yakima Ri ver vs. Flow during the 2007-08 Water Quality Study. ( USGS 12510500, Yakima River at Kiona http://waterdata .usgs.gov/wa/nwis/sw )

Mainstem flows tracked historical averages fa irly closely during most of the 2007 irrigation season (April to October). Note that peak high and low flows in the historical data are smoothed out by averaging. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb MarFlow (cfs) 1933-2007 2007-2008

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 60 Streamflow departed from the historical average in several instances. There was a large snowmelt event in March 2007 with the bulk of the r unoff extending into April. A series of four storms also brought rain and increased runoff in April. Much of the snow that would normally have melted in June melted in March and April. The last part of D ecember through the middle of February was characterized by cold temperat ures and heavy snowfall in the mountains, and thus lower flows. ( www.wrh.noaa.gov/pdt/climate/monthInReview/index.php?wfo=pdt ).

The average annual flow at Kiona since the TMDL effort was initiated is plotted in Figure 18. The first year of sampling for the Lower Yakima River Suspe nded Sediment and DDT TMDL was 1994, a drought year. A period of higher than average runoff occurr ed over the next six years, followed by another drought in 2001. Flows have b een lower than average over the past several years. Water supplies since about 1994 have gene rally been less than the historical mean would indicate they should have been over th e last decade and a half (Coffin, 2008).

The average flow during 2007 was close to the long-term mean

− 3,813 cfs vs. 3,516 cfs, respectively. Most of the surface water samples for the water quality study (80%) were collected during this period. Therefore, th e results reported here should be representative of the typical flow regime in the Yakima River ba sin, at least to the extent that they do not reflect a particularly low- or high-flow year.

Figure 18. Annual Mean Flow in th e Yakima River at Kiona, 1994-2007. (USGS 12510500, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/sw ) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Flow (cfs) 1933-2007 Mean Flo w

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 61 

## Surface Water Quality

Pesticides

Four stations on the lower Yakima River mainstem , the Naches River, and four major left-bank irrigation returns were monitored for chlorina ted pesticides, the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos, suspended sediment, and turbid ity from April 2007 through March 2008. Samples were collected twice-a-month during the irriga tion season and monthly dur ing the non-irrigation season, providing results for approximately 170 samples, 18-19 samples per site. Sampling locations were shown pr eviously in Figure 7.

Pesticides other than those on the 303(d) list we re infrequently detected and, when present, the levels were low. These results are not discussed further. All of the data obtained on pesticides and ancillary water quality para meters in surface water sample s can be found in Appendices J and K.

The complete project data are also availabl e through Ecology’s Envi ronmental Information Management (EIM) website www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/index.htm ; search User Study ID AJOH0055

. Detection Frequency and Concentration Ranges

Lower Mainstem and Naches River

Results for 303(d) listed pesticides d 

### in the lower Yakima mainstem and Naches River are summarized in Table 18. Concen trations are in units of ng/L (nanograms per liter) which is equivalent to parts per trillion. The reporting limit was used to calcula te summary statistics when a pesticide was not detected. e 

### The same convention is fo llowed throughout the report, unless stated otherwise.

The pesticides or breakdown products most freq uently detected in the Yakima mainstem and Naches River were DDE, chlorpyrifos, and endosulfan: 76%, 61%, and 49% of samples, respectively. DDD and dieldrin were detected less frequently : 26% and 22% of samples. DDT was reported in only 18% of the samples, most of it having broken down to DDE and DDD. The other two 303(d) pes ticides analyzed, chlordane a nd alpha-BHC, were below the limits of detection. The reporting limit for these compounds was 0.061-0.067 ng/L.

Toxaphene was not detected at or above 3 ng/L (data not shown). Low detection limits could not be achieved for toxaphene in these samples due to interferences. Better toxaphene data were obtained through the use of SPMD passive samplers (see PCBs and Toxaphene , page 102).

d In this report, the terms DDT, DDE, and DDD refer to the 4,4’ isomers. The 2,2’ isom ers are also present but at insignificant levels. Endosulfan is the sum of detected c oncentrations of endosulfan I and endosulfan II. Chlordane is the sum of detected concentrations of cis & tran s chlordane, cis & trans no nachlor, and oxychlordane.

e The detection limit is the lowest concentration where there is evidence of the analyte be ing present. The reporting limit is the lowest concentration that can reliably be repo rted, based on method blanks, instrument calibration, and other factors.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 62 Table 18. Summary of Results from Monitoring 303( d) Listed Pesticides at Four Locations in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River and in the Naches River during 2007-08: Yakima River at Harrison Bridge, Naches River at mouth, Yakima River at Parker Bridge, Yakima River at Euclid Bridge, Yakima River at Kiona Bridge (concentrations in ng/L, parts per trillion).

DDT DDE DDD Dieldrin No. of Samples 90 90 90 90 Detection Frequency (%) 18% 76% 26% 22% Median Concentration 0.063 U 0.15 0.063 U 0.065 U Mean Concentration 0.077 0.21 0.072 0.091 90th Percentile Concentration 0.10 0.43 0.094 0.15 Maximum Concentration 0.44 J 1.3 0.22 0.29 Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha-BHC No. of Samples 90 90 90 90 Detection Frequency (%) 49% 61% 0% 0% Median Concentration 0.066 U 0.18 0.063 U 0.063 U Mean Concentration 0.24 1.7 0.063 U 0.063 U 90th Percentile Concentration 0.48 4.1 0.065 U 0.065 U Maximum Concentration 2.4 20 0.067 U 0.067 U U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated.



### The highest concentrations reco rded were 20 ng/L for chlorpyrif os and 2.4 ng/L for endosulfan. Both of these insecticides are currently us ed in the Yakima basin. The maximum DDE concentration was 1.3 ng/L. Dieldrin reached 0.2 9 ng/L. DDT, dieldrin, chlordane, and alphaBHC were all banned in the 1970s and 1980s and are no longer used.

Figure 19 compares the detections of DDE, dieldrin, endosulfan, and chlorpyrifos at each of the mainstem and Naches River monitoring sites. Results are arranged in downstream order from the Yakima River at Harrison Bridge (r.m. 121.7, a bove the city of Yakima) to the Yakima River at Kiona (r.m. 29.8, above the Colu mbia River confluence).

DDE was always below detection limits in th e Yakima River at Ha rrison Bridge, but was routinely detectable in the Naches River and all downstream locations (89-100% of samples). DDE, dieldrin, endosulfan, and chlorpyrifos all showed a consistent increase in detection frequency moving downriver from Harrison Bridge. These results point to the Naches River as being a larger contributor of DDT com pounds than the upper Yakima River.

Dieldrin was rarely detected at Harrison Bridge and never detected in th e Naches River. The major dieldrin sources appear to lie downstream of Parker.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 63 Figure 19. Detection Frequency of Selected 303(d) Listed Pes ticides in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River and Naches River during 2007-08 (percent of samples detected, N=18). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HARRISON NACHES PARKER EUCLID KIONADetectionFrequency DDE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HARRISON NACHES PARKER EUCLID KIONADetectionFrequency Dieldrin

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HARRISON NACHES PARKER EUCLID KIONADetectionFrequency Endosulfan

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HARRISON NACHES PARKER EUCLID KIONADetectionFrequency Chlorpyrifos

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 64 Major Irrigation Returns

Table 19 summarizes the pesticide data for th e four major lower river irrigation returns monitored in conjunction with mainstem: M oxee Drain (r.m. 107.3 near Union Gap), Granger Drain (r.m. 82.8 at Granger), Sulphur Creek Wasteway (r.m. 61.0 at Sunnyside), and Spring Creek (r.m. 41.8 below Prosser). The initial TMDL investigation identified these returns as priority discharges for mon itoring (Joy and Patterson, 1997).

Table 19. Summary of Results from Monitoring 303(d) Listed Pesticides in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima Ri ver during 2007-08: Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, Spring Creek (concentrations in ng/L, parts per trillion).

DDT DDE DDD Dieldrin No. of Samples 76 76 76 76 Detection Frequency (%) 82% 100% 97% 71% Median Concentration 0.19 1.2 0.22 0.16 Mean Concentration 0.87 1.4 0.24 0.22 90th Percentile Concentration 0.64 2.6 0.42 0.47 Maximum Concentration 44 5.5 0.89 0.92 Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha-BHC No. of Samples 76 76 76 76 Detection Frequency (%) 88% 87% 3% 0% Median Concentration 0.36 0.54 0.063 U 0.063 U Mean Concentration 1.2 8.1 0.063 U 0.063 U 90th Percentile Concentration 3.2 15 0.065 U 0.065 U Maximum Concentration 15 211 0.082 0.095 UJ U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated.



### DDT compounds, dieldrin, endosulfa n, and chlorpyrifos were detect ed much more frequently in the irrigation returns than in the mainstem: 71-100% vs. 18-76%. The maximum concentrations observed were higher in the return s by factors of 4 to 10. Chlordane was reported in only 3% of the return samples and alpha-BHC was never detect ed, which is consistent with findings for the mainstem.

Despite elevated reporting limits, toxaphene wa s detected in four samples (5% detection frequency) from the major irrigation returns, two each from Moxee Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway. Estimated concentrations were in the range of 3.5 – 7.0 ng/L. Low-level data for toxaphene for the mainstem and major irrigati on returns is discussed later this report.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 65 The term “total DDT” refers to the summed c oncentrations of the insecticide DDT and its breakdown products DDE and DDD. A particular ly high total DDT concentration of 50 ng/L was recorded in Granger Drain on 1/1/08. This sample was comprised of 86% un-degraded DDT (Figure 20). A large amount of the DDT pa rent compound (52%) was also found in Spring Creek on 4/5/07 (5.6 ng/L total DDT). Studies done elsewhere have attri buted similar findings to disturbance of subsurface farm soils, rather than recent use of DDT (e.g., Risebrough et al., 1984). DDT degrades more slowly when buried th an when near the surface and exposed to light and greater biological activity (C allahan et al., 1979). The un-de graded DDT residual in 95% of the samples analyzed from the returns in the present study was less than 30% of the total, indicating the source is hi storical application.

Figure 20. Percent of Un-degraded DDT in Wate r Samples From Four Ma jor Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08: Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulfur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek.

Pesticide detection frequency was similar among the four returns, excep t for dieldrin in Moxee Drain (Figure 21). Dieldrin was reporte d in only 26% of the Moxee samples, compared to 84-89% in the three other discharges. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

P e r c e n t D D T



### 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 

### Fraction of Data Granger Drain 1/10/08

Spring Creek 4/5/07

Granger Drain 6/7/07

Fraction of Samples (N=76)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 66 Figure 21. Detection Frequency of Selected 303(d) Listed Pestic ides in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08 (percent of samples, N=19). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MOXEE GRANGER SULPHUR SPRINGDetectionFrequency DDE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MOXEE GRANGER SULPHUR SPRINGDetectionFrequency Dieldrin

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MOXEE GRANGER SULPHUR SPRINGDetectionFrequency Endosulfan

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MOXEE GRANGER SULPHUR SPRINGDectionFrequency Chlorpyrifos

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 67 Comparison with Water Quality Criteria

Human Health

The human health criteria are in tended to protect the average c onsumer from excess cancer and other health risks incurred from exposure to contaminated fish a nd water. People with higher or lower body weights and fish or wate r consumption rates than used to calculate the criteria would face higher or lower risks. As previously note d, the human health criter ia were promulgated on the states through the EPA National Toxics Rule. Washington State does not have human health criteria for chlorpyrifos, none having been pr oposed by EPA. The wate r quality criteria are described in more deta il starting on page 9.

Lower Mainstem and Naches River

The percentage of Yakima and Naches River water samples that exceeded Washington State human health criteria for pest icides is shown in Table 20. The criteria shown are for consumption of both fish and water. In the case of DDT compounds, di eldrin, and chlordane, these criteria are the same as or only slightly lower than the criteria for fish consumption only (see Table 3).

Table 20. Percent of Samples Exceeding Human Hea lth Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in the Mainstem Lower Yakima Rive r and Naches River during 2007-08. (N=18)

Location DDT DDE DDD Dieldrin Human Health Criteria (ng/L): 0.59 0.59 0.83 0.14 Yakima River at Harrison 0% 0% 0% 0% Naches River at mouth 0% 0% 0% 0% Yakima River at Parker 0% 0% 0% 0% Yakima River at Euclid 0% 17% 0% 22% Yakima River at Kiona 0% 6% 0% 28% Location Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha BHC Human Health Criteria (ng/L): 930 NA 0.57 3.9 Yakima River at Harrison 0% NA 0% 0% Naches River at mouth 0% NA 0% 0% Yakima River at Parker 0% NA 0% 0% Yakima River at Euclid 0% NA 0% 0% Yakima River at Kiona 0% NA 0% 0% NA = not applicable (criteria have not been adopted).



### Instances where human health criteria were exce eded in the Yakima mainstem were limited to DDE and dieldrin and were observed at Euclid and Kiona, but not further upstream. 17-22% of samples exceeded at Euclid and 6-28% of samp les exceeded at Kiona. Other 303(d) listed pesticides were always within human health cr iteria in the mainstem. The Naches River never exceeded criteria.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 68 Major Irrigation Returns

Table 21 shows how the four majo r lower river returns compared to human health criteria. Comparing the returns directly with human health criteria is appropriate for several reasons. First, both state and federal op inions have concluded that wate rs within the Columbia Basin, including irrigation returns, are waters of the state and therefore subject to the water quality standards (AGO 1969 No. 4 www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=9166 ; Levigne, 1997; Ryan, 1997). Second, as demonstr ated in Ecology’s 2006 fish tissue survey and confirmed in the 2007-08 water qual ity study, the Yakima River is of ten at or above criteria for several of these compounds, and thus does not have additional assimilative capacity. Third, some segments of the local population are known to catch fish out of irrigation returns on a routine basis.

Table 21. Percent of Samples Exceeding Human Hea lth Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in Four Major Irrigation Returns to th e Lower Yakima River during 2007-08. (N=19)

Location DDT DDE DDD Dieldrin Human Health Criteria (ng/L): 0.59 0.59 0.83 0.14 Moxee Drain 0% 74% 0% 26% Granger Drain 47% 100% 5% 53% Sulphur Creek Wasteway 0% 100% 0% 89% Spring Creek 11% 32% 0% 58% Location Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha BHC Human Health Criteria (ng/L): 930 NA 0.57 3.9 Moxee Drain 0% NA 0% 0% Granger Drain 0% NA 0% 0% Sulphur Creek Wasteway 0% NA 0% 0% Spring Creek 0% NA 0% 0% NA = not applicable (criteria have not been adopted for chlorpyrifos).



### The returns exceeded human health criteria for DDT, DDE, and dieldrin much more frequently than the mainstem. Endosulfan, chlordane, a nd alpha-BHC, however, always remained within criteria.

As illustrated in Figure 22, DDE and dieldrin typi cally exceeded human h ealth criteria 50% of the time or more, with 100% exceedance of th e DDE criterion in Granger Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway. Exceptions were DDE in Spri ng Creek, which exceeded 32% of the time, and dieldrin in Moxee Drain, which exceeded 26% of the time. Granger Drain and Spring Creek were the only returns where the DDT human h ealth criterion was exceed ed. As previously noted, these discharges had an unusually high percentage of un-degraded DDT in several instances.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 69 Figure 22. Percent of Samples Exceeding Human Health Criteria for DDE, DDT, and Dieldrin in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08. (N=19) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MOXEE GRANGER SULPHUR SPRINGExceedance Frequency 

### DDE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MOXEE GRANGER SULPHUR SPRINGExceedance Frequency 

### DDT

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MOXEE GRANGER SULPHUR SPRINGExceedance Frequency 

### Dieldrin

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 70 Aquatic Life

Water quality criteria to protect aquatic life are typically less restrictive than the human health criteria, i.e., higher concentrations are considered to be protective. The aquatic life criteria for DDT compounds apply to total DDT, rather than the individual concentrations of DDT, DDE, or DDD. Human health criteria have not been proposed for total DDT.

Lower Mainstem and Naches River

Washington State’s aquatic life criteria for chronic (long-term) exposure to 303(d) pesticides were rarely exceeded in the mainstem Yakima River and never exceeded in the Naches River during 2007-08 (Table 22). The acute criteria (short-term exposure) we re always being met.

The chronic total DDT criterion was exceeded in 6% of the samples collecte d in the mainstem at Euclid and 6% of samples at Kiona (1 out of 18). Other pesticides were always within chronic criteria.

Table 22. Percent of Samples Exceeding Chroni c Aquatic Life Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in the Mainstem Lower Yaki ma River and Naches River during 2007-08. (N=18)

Location Total DDT* Dieldrin Endosulfan Aquatic Life Criteria (ng/L): 1.0 1.9 56 Yakima River at Harrison 0% 0% 0% Naches River at mouth 0% 0% 0% Yakima River at Parker 0% 0% 0% Yakima River at Euclid 6% 0% 0% Yakima River at Kiona 6% 0% 0% Location Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha BHC Aquatic Life Criteria (ng/L): 41 4.3 NA Yakima River at Harrison 0% 0% NA Naches River at mouth 0% 0% NA Yakima River at Parker 0% 0% NA Yakima River at Euclid 0% 0% NA Yakima River at Kiona 0% 0% NA NA = not applicable (criteria have not been adopted). *Total DDT = DDT+DDE+DDD.



### Major Irrigation Returns

Tributaries and irrigation returns to the lower Yakima River provide habitat for salmonids and other fish species (Joy and Patte rson, 1997). They also discharg e to reaches of the mainstem with important fish habitat. The presence of chinook, coho, and steelhead has been documented in Moxee Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek, with coho spawning observed in Sulphur and Spring ( http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html ). Rearing and migration are specifically identifi ed as designated uses for Sulphur Creek Wasteway in the water

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 71 quality standards. f 

### It is therefore important that thes e discharges comply with aquatic life criteria.

Total DDT commonly exceeded the chronic aquatic life criterion in all four returns, with Granger Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway ex ceeding throughout the year (Table 23). Chlorpyrifos was occasionally above the chro nic criterion in Moxee Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek (5-11% of samples). Dieldrin, endosulfan, and chlordane were always within aquatic life criteria. There are no aquatic life criter ia for alpha-BHC.

Table 23. Percent of Samples Exceeding Chroni c Aquatic Life Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in Four Major Irr igation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08. (N=19)

Location Total DDT* Dieldrin Endosulfan Aquatic Life Criteria (ng/L): 1.0 1.9 56 Moxee Drain 68% 0% 0% Granger Drain 100% 0% 0% Sulphur Creek Wasteway 100% 0% 0% Spring Creek 26% 0% 0% Location Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha BHC Aquatic Life Criteria (ng/L): 41 4.3 NA Moxee Drain 5% 0% NA Granger Drain 0% 0% NA Sulphur Creek Wasteway 11% 0% NA Spring Creek 11% 0% NA *DDT+DDE+DDD. NA = not applicable (criteria have not been adopted).



### Spatial and Seasonal Patterns

Lower Mainstem Figures 23 and 24 illustrate how the average total DDT and dieldrin concentrations increased in the Yakima mainstem moving downstream from Harrison Bridge to Kiona during the 2007 irrigation season. The highest levels of th ese compounds were gene rally observed during irrigation. Previous studies have had simila r findings (Joy and Patters on, 1997; Rinella et al., 1999; Ebbert and Embrey, 2002).
On average, total DDT concentrations increased by a factor of 2 or more between Harrison and Parker. This was due, at least in part, to the Naches River and Moxee Drain. The greatest impacts occurred between Parker and Euclid wher e concentrations increa sed by a factor of 4. Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wa steway, and a large number of right bank tributaries and returns discharge to this reach. Total DDT levels at Kiona averaged about two-thirds of those at Euclid due to dilu tion and sedimentation.

f The Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control installed an adult fish barrier in lower Sulphur Creek Wasteway during the winter of 2007-08.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 72 Dieldrin was at or below detect ion limits from Harrison to Parker , including in the Naches River and, in most cases, Moxee Drain. There did not app ear to be large dieldrin sources in this reach of the river. Dieldrin increased by a factor of at least 2 at Eucl id and then decreased slightly by Kiona.

Figure 23. Average Total DDT Concentrations in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season (ng/L = parts per trillion, concentrat ion proportional to circle area, nondetects shown as less than 1⁄2 detection limit).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 73 Figure 24. Average Dieldrin C oncentrations in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season (ng/L = parts per trillion, concentrat ion proportional to circle area, nondetects shown as less than 1⁄2 detection limit).

Figure 25 shows how DDE and total DDT levels varied at Euclid and Kiona from April 2007 through March 2008. These are the two mainstem locations where water quality criteria were not being met consistently. The daily flow at Kiona is also s hown (USGS station 12510500 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/sw ).

DDE and total DDT varied directly with discha rge. The pattern corresponded to changes in suspended sediment and reflects the affinity th ese compounds have for so il particles and other suspended matter. The suspended sediment data are discussed later in this report.

Concentrations of DDT compounds were similar at both locations, except during the second half of the irrigation season (July- October) when much lower levels were measured at Kiona. This can be partly attributed to dilution. Due to irri gation withdrawals, the fl ow at Euclid was about 80% of the flow at Kiona duri ng this period. Lower river velo cities also cause suspended sediments to settle out, thereby reducing concentrations of DDT co mpounds in the water column. The low gradient reach from above Sunnyside (a pproximately r.m. 70) to Prosser Dam (r.m. 47.2) is an area where deposition is known to o ccur (Zuroske, 2008). USGS has characterized this reach as a “slow-moving meandering pool” (Morace et al., 1999).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 74 Figure 25. Seasonal Patterns in DDE and Tota l DDT at Two Sites in the Lower Mainstem Yakima River (ng/L= parts per trillion; non-detect s plotted at the reporting limit).

The highest DDE and total DDT concentrations we re recorded during a storm event in December (12/4/08). Ebbert and Embrey (2002) and others have demonstrated that pesticides like DDT that persist in soil continue to be transported in Yakima River streams and drains throughout the year, especially during stor m runoff or snowmelt.
DDE was meeting the human health criterion (0.59 ng/L) at Euc lid and Kiona throughout most the irrigation season. However, it was at or clos e to the criterion in June and September and exceeded the criterion at Euclid in early October. Concentrati ons fluctuated widely during the 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4cubicfeetpersecondng/L(partspertrillion) 

## DDE

EUCLID

KIONA

Kiona Flow Human Health Criterion

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2cubicfeetpersecondng/L(partspertrillion) 

### T

‐ DDT

EUCLID

KIONA

Kiona Flow Aquatic Life Criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 75 winter, at which time the human health criter ion was exceeded on two occasions. The river was at or above the chronic aquatic life criterion for tota l DDT (1.0 ng/L) on three occasions, once during irrigation and tw ice during the winter.

A different pattern was observed for dieldrin, which showed an inverse relationship with flow (Figure 26). Concentrations increased substant ially at Euclid and Kiona as flows decreased during the second half of the irrigation season; dieldrin then dropped to levels at or below detection in the fall and winter. Unlike DDT compounds, dieldrin was little affected by the December storm event. Thus, dieldrin appear s to fluctuate primarily with the amount of available dilution.

Figure 26. Seasonal Patterns in Dieldrin Concentrations at Tw o Sites in the Lower Mainstem Yakima River (ng/L= parts per trillion; non-detect s plotted at the reporting limit).

The contrasting behavior of di eldrin vs. DDT compounds is like ly due to dieldrin’s greater solubility and lower affinity for suspended matter. Estimates obtained from the SPMD deployments indicate that more than 90% of the di eldrin is in dissolved form and not associated with particulates. The inve rse relationship with flow s uggests a potential groundwater contribution. A similar pattern was not observed in any of the four majo r irrigation returns, but has been reported for Wide Hollow Creek a nd attributed to subsurface flows (Johnson and Burke, 2006).

The human health criterion for dieldrin (0.14 ng/L) was exceeded at Euclid at the start of the irrigation season and from July through September. Kiona had lower concentrations, but was at or slightly above the criterion on a number of o ccasions during the second half of the irrigation season and substantially exceeded it once. Dieldr in never approached the chronic aquatic life criterion (1.9 ng/L) at either location.

Endosulfan and chlorpyrifos exhibited several dis tinct peaks associated with their application during the growing season (Figure 27). Concentr ations were uniformly low during the winter. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35cubicfeetpersecondng/L(partspertrillion) 

## Dieldrin

EUCLID

KIONA

Kiona Flow Human Health Criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 76 Figures 28 and 29 give a snapshot of the concentr ations observed during the initial spike detected on April 4-5, 2007. At this time, concentrations in the lower river increased by more than a factor of 3 for endosulfan and by a factor of 10 or more for chlorpyrifos. Although neither of these insecticides approached water quality crite ria, the timing of the maximum concentrations may have been missed due to the twice-a-month sampling schedule.

Figure 27. Seasonal Patterns in En dosulfan and Chlorpyrifos Concen trations at Two Sites in the Lower Mainstem Yakima River (ng/L= parts per trillion; non- detects plotted at the reporting limit). 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3cubicfeetpersecondng/L(partspertrillion) 

## Endosulfan

EUCLID

KIONA

Kiona Flow [Water quality criteria not exceeded]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0 5 10 15 20 25cubicfeetpersecondng/L(partspertrillion) 

## Chlorpyrifos

EUCLID

KIONA

Kiona Flow [Water quality criteria not exceeded]

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 77 Figure 28. Endosulfan Concentrations in th e Lower Yakima River on April 4-5, 2007 (ng/L = parts per trillion, concentration proportio nal to circle area, non-detects shown as less than 1⁄2 detection limit).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 78 Figure 29. Chlorpyrifos Concentrations in the Lower Yakima River on April 4-5, 2007 (ng/L = parts per trillion, concentr ation proportional to circle area).

Major Irrigation Returns

Time-series plots for DDE, total DDT, and diel drin in Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek are displayed in Figures 30-33. Flow data were obtained from USGS ( http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis ) or gauged in the fiel d (Spring Creek). In general, concentrations increas ed in the early part of the irrigation season, followed by a decrease into fall and winter. Sulphur Creek Wasteway showed a second period of elevated concentrations during winter that corresponded to increase s in TSS and turbidity.

In Moxee Drain and Spring Creek, water quality criteria violations for DDT compounds and dieldrin were primarily limited to the irri gation season. Granger Dr ain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway had exceedances throughout the year.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 79 Figure 30. DDT Compounds and Dieldrin in Mox ee Drain during 2007-08. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2CFSng/L 

## Moxee

DDE
Flow human health criterion

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3CFSng/L 

## Moxee

T-DDT
Flow aquatic life criterion

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16CFSng/L 

## Moxee

Dieldrin
Flow human health criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 80 Figure 31. DDT Compounds and Dieldrin in Gra nger Drain during 2007-08. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6CFSng/L 

## Granger

DDE
Flow

human health criterion

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12CFSng/L 

## Granger

T-DDT
Flow (50 ng/L)

aquatic life criterion

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7CFSng/L 

## Granger

Dieldrin
Flow human health criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 81 Figure 32. DDT Compounds and Dieldrin in Sulphur Cr eek Wasteway during 2007-08. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3CFSng/L 

## Sulphur

DDE
Flow human health criterion

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5CFSng/L 

## Sulphur

T-DDT
Flow aquatic life criterion

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1CFSng/L 

## Sulphur

Dieldrin
Flow human health criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 82 Figure 33. DDT Compounds and Dieldrin in Spring Creek during 2007-08. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5CFSng/L 

## Spring

DDE
Flow human health criterion

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6CFSng/L 

## Spring

T-DDT
Flow aquatic life criterion

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35CFSng/L 

## Spring

Dieldrin
Flow human health criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 83 Endosulfan exhibited the same peaks seen in the mainstem, demonstrating that the returns were contributing sources (Figure 34). No mainstem samples were collected that corresponded to the late March 2008 peak seen in all four returns (3/28/08). The maximum endosulfan concentrations observed in the returns were always well within water quality criteria.

Figure 34. Endosulfan and Chlorpyrifos in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Yakima River during 2007-08. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16ng/L 

## Endosulfan

MOXEE GRANGER SULFUR SPRING [water quality criteria not exceeded]

0 50 100 150 200 250ng/L 

## Chlorpyrifos

MOXEE GRANGER SULFUR SPRING chronic aquatic life criterion

acute aquatic life criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 84 The returns and the mainstem show ed corresponding chlorp yrifos peaks in April. The mainstem peaks of August and October, howev er, were not seen in any of th e returns, indicating there were other sources. The highest chlor pyrifos levels were recorded at the start of irrigation in both 2007 and 2008, at which time the acute aquatic life criterion was exceeded in Spring Creek and, marginally, in Moxee Drain.
Endosulfan and chlorpyrifos are applied duri ng certain windows over the growing season. Again, peak concentrations were potentially mi ssed with a twice-a month sampling regime. Ecology conducted more intensive pesticides m onitoring in Sulphur Creek Wasteway and Spring Creek during 2007 as part of the Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in SalmonidBearing Streams (SWMP; Dugger et al., 2008). Samples we re collected weekly from February through October. Current-use pesticides are the focus of this ongoing effort.

SWMP’s chlorpyrifos data are compared to re sults from twice-a-month sampling in Figure 35. Although the present study detected the approximate timing of the chlorpyrifos peaks, it did not record the highest concentrations, which substantia lly exceeded criteria. During the remainder of the year, concentrations were below the SW MP reporting limit of 33 ng/L and thus not comparable to the present st udy (0.06 ng/L reporting limit).

SWMP also monitored Sulphur Creek Wasteway and Spring Creek in previous years. Although chlorpyrifos levels appeared to be lower, acute or chronic aquatic life criter ia were still exceeded during peak usage peri ods (Table 24).

SWMP’s reporting limit for endosulfan is 50 ng/L. Endosulfan has not been detected at or above this level in either of these returns. Repor ting limits for DDT compounds, dieldrin, and other 303(d) listed pesticides analyzed by SWMP ar e not low enough to compare to water quality criteria.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 85 Figure 35. Chlorpyrifos Concentrations in Sulphur Creek Wasteway and Spring Creek Compared to Results from the SWMP (Dugger et al., 2008; non-detect s plotted at the reporting limit). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300ng/L Chlorpyrifos in Spring Creek

SWMP Present Study acute aquatic life criterion

chronic aquatic life criterion 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180ng/L Chlorpyrifos in Sulphur Creek

SWMP Present Study acute aquatic life criterion

chronic aquatic life criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 86 Table 24. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Data Re ported for Sulphur Creek Wasteway and Spring Creek by SWMP (ng/L; parts per trillion).

Year: 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Monitoring Period: Feb.-Sept. March-Oct. March-Oct. April-Oct. April-Dec. Sulphur Creek Wasteway No. of Samples 31 24 29 31 18 Detection Frequency 13% 29% 21% 19% 19% Median Concentration 100 13 19 11 8 Maximum Concentration 170 100 37 47 13 Spring Creek No. of Samples 31 36 29 31 18 Detection Frequency 19% 31% 24% 19% 24% Median Concentration 30 15 28 11 4 Maximum Concentration 270 60 89 77 9 Source: Burke et al. (2006); Dugger et al. (2008).



### Pesticide Loads

The routine monitoring data were used to calculate average loads of total DDT, dieldrin, endosulfan, and chlorpyrifos in the Yakima Rive r, Naches River, and major returns during the 2007 irrigation season (Table 25). A concentration equal to half the reporting limit was assumed where a pesticide was not detected.

Table 25. Average Loads of Selected 303(d) Pesticides during the 2007 Irrigation Season (grams per day).

Location Mean Flow (cfs) Total DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos

Yakima River at Harrison 1,646 ~0.1 ~0.2 ~0.4 ~0.9 Naches River at mouth 1,843 0.8 ~0.1 1.0 ~4.0 Yakima River at Parker 2,081 0.7 ~0.2 2.2 6.4 Yakima River at Euclid 2,657 3.2 0.6 5.2 27 Yakima River at Kiona 3,227 3.6 0.6 4.3 36 Moxee Drain 62 0.3 0.01 0.2 1.3 Granger Drain 37 0.3 0.03 0.1 0.2 Sulfur Creek Wasteway 293 1.3 0.3 1.2 2.3 Spring Creek 46 0.2 0.02 0.1 1.0 Note: Half the reporting limit used for non-detects. "~" indicates >50% of samples were below reporting limit.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 87 Figure 36 shows the loads in downs tream order. A substantial increase in loading is evident between Harrison Bridge and Euclid for all four pesticides, with most of the increase occurring between Parker and Euclid. Total DDT, dieldrin , and endosulfan loads remained about the same between Euclid and Kiona indicating an absence of large sources in this reach. There was increased chlorpyrifos load ing downstream of Euclid.

Figure 36. Average Loads of Selected 303(d) Pesticides during th e 2007 Irrigation Season (grams per day). 0.1 0.7 3.2 3.6

0.8
0.3 0.3 1.3

0.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0grams per day 

### Total DDT

Mainstem Tributaries/Returns

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 88 Figure 36. Average Loads of Select ed 303(d) Pesticides (continued). 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6

0.1

0.01 0.03 0.3

0.02 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7grams per day 

### Dieldrin

Mainstem Tributaries/Returns

0.4 2.2 5.2

4.3

1.0

0.2 0.1 1.2

0.1 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0grams per day 

### Endosulfan

Mainstem Tributaries/Returns

0.9 6.4 27 36

4.0 1.3 0.2 2.3 1.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40grams per day 

### Chlorpryrifos

Mainstem Tributaries/Returns

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 89 Figure 37 illustrates the relative importance of th e four returns as pesticide sources during and after the irrigation season. On average, the combined loading of to tal DDT, dieldrin, and endosulfan potentially accounted for half to a th ird of the load at Kiona during irrigation. The returns appeared to be minor sources of chlorpyrifos, on average. The endosulfan and chlorpyrifos loads could be biased low due to sampling frequency, as previously described. The potential for the returns to affect pesticide levels in the Yakima River was much reduced after the end of the irrigation season.

Figure 37. Average Combined Pesticide Loadin g from Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek as a Percenta ge of the Average Load in the Yakima River @ Kiona during 2007-08. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Total DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan ChlorpyrifosPercent of Kiona Load

Irrigation Season Non-irrigation Season

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 90 Other Lower River Tributaries and Returns

Twenty-three additional tributar ies and irrigation returns to the lower Yakima River were screened for pesticides, suspended sediment, and turbidity during 2007-08. Most of these discharges had either never been sampled for pe sticides or the samples had not been analyzed down to human health criteria levels. Quarterl y monitoring provided results for 85 samples. The sampling locations were prev iously shown in Figure 8.

A summary of the data for 303(d) listed pesticides is provided in Table 26. Reporting limits were the same as for the routine monitoring st ations (0.061-0.067 ng/L, 3 ng/L for toxaphene). Once again, pesticides not on the 303(d) list were in frequently detected or present at low levels. The complete results from the screening survey are in Appendix K.

Table 26. Summary of Results from Screening for 303(d) Listed Pesticides in 23 Tributaries and Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08 (concentrations in ng/L, parts per trillion).

DDT DDE DDD Dieldrin

No. of Samples 85 85 85 84 Detection Frequency (%) 44% 93% 65% 46% Median Concentration 0.066 U 0.56 0.11 U 0.11 U Mean Concentration 0.24 1.0 0.21 0.25 90th Percentile Concentration 0.63 2.8 0.48 0.55 Maximum Concentration 1.3 6.1 1.3 1.9 Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha-BHC No. of Samples 84 84 85 85 Detection Frequency (%) 79% 83% 7% 2% Median Concentration 0.33 0.65 0.063 U 0.063 U Mean Concentration 0.66 2.2 0.064 U 0.064 U 90th Percentile Concentration 1.3 7.3 0.065 U 0.065 U Maximum Concentration 12 21 0.14 0.14 U = not detected at or above reported value.



### Pesticide detection frequencies and concentration levels were generally similar to findings for Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wast eway, and Spring Creek. DDT and dieldrin, however, tended to be dete cted less frequently.

DDE, total DDT, and dieldrin exceeded water qu ality criteria in a num ber of the screening survey discharges. Endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, chlordane, and alpha-BHC were always meeting criteria. Toxaphene was not de tected at or above 3 ng/L.

Figure 38 plots the DDE, total DDT, and dieldrin c oncentrations as a ratio of the applicable water quality criterion (concentration divided by criterion). Values greater than 1.0 exceed the criterion. The results are arranged in downstream order, starting with Selah Creek above the city of Yakima (r.m. 123.7) and ending with Am on Wasteway near Richland (r.m. 2.1).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 91 Figure 38. Concentration:Criteria Ratios for DDT compounds and Di eldrin in 23 Tributaries and Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River (ratios >1 exceed criterion). S E

L A

H

C

K W

E N

A

S

S E

L A

H

D

C

H

T A

Y

L

O

R

D

C

O

W

I C

H

E

E W

I D

E

H

O

L

A

H

T A

N

U

M Z

I L

L A

H

E A

S T

T O

P S U

B

3 5 M

A

R

I O

N
T

O

P P

C

K C

O

U

L

E

E

S A

T U

S

C

K

S O

U

T H

D

R

D

I D

7

S A

T U

S

3 0 2

S A

T U

S

3 0 3 D

R

A

I N

3 1

G

R

A

N

D

V

I E W W

A

U

N

A C

O

R

R

A

L A

M

O

N 

## 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

D D E : H H C r i t e r i o n 

## DDE

S EL

A

H

C

K W

E N

A

S

S E

L A

H

D

C

H

T A

Y

LO

R

D

C

O

W

I C

H

E

E W

I D

E

H

O

L

A

H

T A

N

U

M Z

I LL

A

H

E A

S T

T O

P S U

B

3 5 MA R

I O

N T O

P P

C

K C

O

U

LE

E

S A

T U

S

C

K

S O

U

TH D

R

D

I D

7

S A

T U

S

3 0 2

S A

T U

S

3 0 3 D

R

A

I N

3 1

G

R

A

N

D

V

I E W W

A

U

N

A C

O

R

R

A

L A

M

O

N 

## 0 5 10 15

D i e l d r i n : H H C r i t e r i o n



## Dieldrin

S E

L A

H

C

K WE N

A

S

S E

L A

H

D

C

H

T A

Y

L

O

R

D

C

O

W

I C

H

E

E W

I D

E

H

O

L

A

H

T A

N

U

M Z

I L

L A

H

E A

ST

T

O

P S U

B

35 M

A

R

I O

N
T

O

P P

C

K C

O

U

L

E

E

S A

T U

S

C

K

S O

U

T

H

D

R

D

I D

7

S A

T U

S

302

S A

T U

S

303 D

R

A

I N

31

G

R

A

N

D

V

I E

W WA U

N

A C

O

R

R

A

L A

M

O

N 

## 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T

- D D T : A q u a t i c L i f e C r i t

.



## T-DDT

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 92 Table 27 highlights those discharges where human health or chronic aquatic life criteria were exceeded by a factor of 2 or more in at least half of the quarterly sc reening samples. Ten discharges fall into this category. All are irrigation return or have a significant agricultural return flow component (Wide Hollow Creek). Because sample size for the screening survey was small, these results may over or underestimate the true extent of water quality criteria violations in individual discharges.

Table 27. Lower Yakima River Ir rigation Returns that Substantia lly Exceeded Human Health or Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria in Scre ening Samples Collected during 2007-08. (N=4)

Irrigation Return Human Health Criteria Exceeded Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria Exceeded DDE Dieldrin Total DDT Grandview Drain    Satus Drain #302    Drain #31   Selah Ditch   Zillah Drain   Satus Drain #303  South Drain   Subdrain 35   Wide Hollow Creek  East Toppenish Drain 



### There was evidence of substantia l amounts of un-degraded DDT in several of these returns (Table 28). As discussed elsewh ere in this report, the source is assumed to be disturbance of subsurface soils rather than recent use. All othe r tributaries and drains in the screening survey consistently had 35% or less DDT.

Table 28. Instances Where a High Proporti on of Un-degraded DDT was Found in 2007-08 Screening Survey Samples (DDT as percent of total DDT).

Irrigation Return Collection Period May-07 Aug-07 Nov-07 Feb-08 Satus 302 65% 65% ---- not flowing ---- South Drain 63% 40% 3% 3% Subdrain 35 60% 29% 3% 14% Grandview Drain 24% 32% 15% 55%

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 93 Overall, the screening survey showed water quality criteria for DDE and total DDT were exceeded more frequently during the irrigation season (Figure 39). Dieldrin exceeded at a similar rate both during and after irrigation.

Figure 39. Percent of Samples Exceeding Human Health or Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria (T-DDT) in 23 Tributaries and Irrigation Re turns to the Lower Yakima River during (May/August) and after (November/Februar y) the 2007 Season (quarterly samples). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

DDE DDT DDD Dieldrin T-DDTPercent of SamplesExceeding Criterion

May/Aug

Nov/Feb

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 94 Ecology’s SWMP has done intensive pesticide monitoring in Marion Drain, located on the Yakama Reservation (Dugger et al., 2008). The results for 2007 show tw o large chlorpyrifos peaks that were missed in the quarterly screening survey samples (Figure 40). The acute aquatic life criterion was exceeded on both occasions. Endos ulfan was not detected in these samples at or above 50 ng/L. SWMP reporting limits for ot her 303(d) listed pesticides were not low enough to compare to water quality criteria.

Figure 40. Chlorpyrifos Concentr ations Measured in Marion Drai n Compared to Results from the SWMP (Dugger et al., 2008; non-detects pl otted at the reporting limit).

In a 2005-06 study, Ecology conducted twice-a-month monitoring for dieldrin and endosulfan in Wide Hollow Creek which flows through Union Gap (Johnson and Burke, 2006). As in 2007- 08, Wide Hollow consistently exceeded the human h ealth criterion for dieldrin (Figure 41). The chronic aquatic life criterion was also exceeded on two occasions. Peak dieldrin concentrations occurred after the irrigation season and showed an inverse relationship with flow and positive correlation with conductivity. This was attributed to subsurface drainage in the watershed.

Endosulfan showed a spring peak in Wide Hollow associated with the tr eatment window in local orchards. Water quality criter ia were not exceeded, which is consistent with the quarterly samples collected in 2007-08. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300ng/L Chlorpyrifos in Marion Drain

SWMP Present Study acute aquatic life criterion

chronic aquatic life criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 95 Figure 41. Results from Monitoring Dieldrin and Endosulfan in Wide Hollow Creek in 2005-06 (Johnson and Burke, 2006). 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5CFSng/L

Dieldrin
Flow

human health criterion chronic aquatic life criterion

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35CFSng/L

Endosulfan
Flow [water quality criteria not exceeded]

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 96 The screening survey data from May and August were used to provide a rough estimate of the average combined loads of total DDT, dieldr in, endosulfan, and chlorpyrifos during the 2007 irrigation season (Table 29). The loads are co mpared to the loads measured through more intensive monitoring of the four major returns. The screening survey results, although limited, suggest these discharges may have a comparable impact on the river.

Table 29. Pesticide Loads from 23 Screening Survey Tributaries and Irrigation Returns Compared to Loads from the Four Major Retu rns: Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulfur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek (average combined load during the 2007 irrigation season (grams per day).)

Source Total DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Screening Survey Tributaries & Returns* 2.1 0.30 1.1 8.7

Major Returns † 2.1 0.33 1.5 4.8 *May and August samples. † April through October samples.



### Comparison with Historical Pesticide Data

Surface Water

Pesticide levels in the lower Yakima River before and after the Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL have been documented for 1988-89 (Rin ella et al., 1993, 1999), 1992-96 (Davis, 1993; Davis and Johnson, 1994; Davis, 1996; Davis et al., 1998a; Joy and Pa tterson, 1997; Johnson and Burke, 2006), and 1999-2000 (Ebbert and Embrey, 2002) . The analytical methods employed in these studies have been adequate to consiste ntly quantify concentrations of DDT compounds, dieldrin, and endosulfan at a number of locati ons. Chlorpyrifos has been analyzed, but detections were sporadic. Chlordane and alpha-B HC are rarely seen in the historical water quality data.

Figure 42 shows the total DDT, dieldrin, and endo sulfan concentrations recorded between 1988 and 2008 for Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphu r Creek Wasteway, Wide Hollow Creek, and the Yakima River at Euclid and Kiona. These sites are where the most significant contamination has been documented. Historical detections of dieldrin and endosulfa n have primarily been confined to irrigation returns.

As first reported for total DDT by Fuhrer et al . (2004), there has been a significant drop in pesticide levels in Yakima surface water over th e past 10 years. Since the TMDL effort was initiated, concentrations of DDT compounds, di eldrin, and endosulfan have decreased by one-to-two orders of magnitude (fact ors of 10). This can be attribut ed to the combined effects of reduced soil erosion, pesticide de gradation, and, in the case of endosulfan, improved application practices.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 97 Figure 42. Pesticide Levels in the Lower Yakima River Drainage, 1988-2008 (nondetects plotted as unfilled symbols). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Total DDT (ng/L) 

### Moxee Drain

1988-89

1992-93

1999-2000

2007-08

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Total DDT (ng/L) 

### Granger Drain

1988-89

1995

1999-2000

2007-08 (357 ng/L)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Total DDT (ng/L) 

### Sulphur Creek

1988-89

1995

2007-08

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 98 Figure 42. Historical Pest icide Data (continued). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Total DDT (ng/L) 

### Yakima River @ Euclid

1988

1995

2007-08

0 1 2 3 4 5 6Total DDT (ng/L) 

### Yakima River @ Kiona

1988-89

1999-2000

2007-08

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Dieldrin (ng/L) 

### Granger Drain

1988-89

1999-2000

2007-08 (24 ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 99 Figure 42. Historical Pest icide Data (continued). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Dieldrin (ng/L) 

### Sulphur Creek

1988-89

2007-08

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Endosulfan (ng/L) 

### Wide Hollow Creek

1988-89

2005-06

2007-08

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Endosulfan (ng/L) 

### Moxee Drain

1988-89

2007-08 (141 ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 100 DDT compounds break down extrem ely slowly. DDT’s half-life in soil has been reported to reach 15-30 years (Makay et al., 1997; Edwards, 1973). Investigations in California have led to the conclusion that DDT is “preserved” in agri cultural soils statewid e (Agee, 1986; Mischke et al., 1985). Once discharged to surface water, the DDE breakdown product is essentially stable (Callahan et al., 1979). Thus, water quality improvements for DDT in the Yakima River can largely be attributed to soil conservation effort s initiated as a result of the TMDLs. This conclusion is bolstered by the accompanying decreas es seen in TSS and turbidity, described later in this report.

Fish Tissue

Legacy chlorinated pesticide residues have also decr eased in Yakima River fish in recent years. The trends, however, are not as clear-cut as in wa ter samples. This is because of differences between studies in analytical methods; when and where fish were collected; the age, sex, tissues, and species analyzed; and fish movements within the river and its tributaries.

Yakima River fish have been analyzed for pe sticide residues by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USGS, EPA, and Ecology; the data are tabulated in Johnson et al. (2007). Results on edible tissue samples collected from the lower river since 1995 were examined for comparable data with respect to species, sampli ng location, and tissues analyzed.

Data comparable to results from Ecology’s 2006 survey are limited to two studies which analyzed fillets in four species from the T oppenish-Prosser reach and one species in the Kiona-Horn Rapids reach (Davis et al., 1998b; EPA, 2002a). One or two composite samples were analyzed for each species, with five or mo re individual fish per composite. These data show a large decrease in DDE and dieldrin re sidues in lower Yakima River fish between 1995 and 2006 (Figure 43).

Fish Consumption Advisories

In 1993, the Washington State Department of H ealth (WDOH) issued an advisory that recommended limiting consumption of bottom fish from the lower Yakima River due to the high levels of DDT compounds.

WDOH evaluated Ecology’s 2006 fish tissue data and observed that DDT levels had dropped substantially. They determined that “the fish advisories based on DDT levels were no longer needed.” A news release was issued on April 30, 2009 lifting the fish consumption advisory due to the lower DDT levels

In the same news release, WDOH concluded that PCB levels in carp from the lower Yakima River were above background levels for Washington State freshwater fish , indicating the need for consumers to reduce their exposure. W DOH advised that people limit consumption of common carp in the lower section of the river to one meal per week. The advisory applies to carp taken from the city of Prosser to the Yakima River mouth near Richland.

The full text of WDOH’s news release is in Appendix L.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 101 Figure 43. DDE and Dieldrin in Fillets fr om Lower Yakima River Fish: 1995, 1998, and 2006 (ug/Kg = parts per billion; error bars are minimum and maximum values).

Data from the present study on PCBs in surface water and permitted discharges in the Yakima basin is discussed in sections of this report that follow. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

1995 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1995 2006 1998 2006DDE (ug/Kg, wet) 

### Toppenish - Prosser Reach Kiona - HornRapids Reach

Car p Whitefish

Sucker

B ass Bass

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

1995 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1995 2006 1998 2006Dieldrin (ug/Kg, wet) 

### Toppenish-Prosser Reach Kiona - Horn Rapids Reach

Carp Whitefish

Sucker Bass Bass

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 102 

## PCBs and Toxaphene

Unlike other samples collected for this study, the surface water data on PCBs and toxaphene were obtained by a passive sampling techniqu e using a semipermeable membrane device (SPMD). This was done due to the expense and di fficulty of analyzing these compounds directly in whole water samples. Whole surface water sa mples were screened for toxaphene, but at high detection limits.

Although chemical concentrations derived from SPM Ds usually agree closely with other types of more complex low-level sampling techniques , the results are calculated values based on experimental uptake rates and part itioning theory and should theref ore be considered estimates. The calculation procedures are outlined in Appendix H.

The SPMDs were deployed for approximately30 days each during the irrigation season (May-June) and after the end of irrigation (October-November) at six sites on the mainstem and in six major tributaries and irriga tion returns. In view of the 303(d) listings for PCBs in fish from Keechelus Lake and the Yakima Canyon, the sampling effort was extended into the upper Yakima River, with SPMDs placed in the ma instem at Easton, above Ellensburg, and in Wilson Creek. The deployment sites were previously shown in Figures 10 and 11.

Concentrations

The concentration estimates obtained for total PCBs g 

### and toxaphene are shown in Table 30. The results are the total concentrations (dissolv ed + particulate fractions ) and represent a 30-day, time-weighted average. Figure 44 plots the data in downstream order to illustrate spatial and temporal patterns; non-detects we re plotted at zero. The residue and dissolved concentration data on which the totals are based are in Appendix M.

During the irrigation season, PCB co ncentrations were two-to-four times higher in the mainstem lower Yakima River compared to the upper mainstem. The lower river approached the human health criterion ( 0.14 vs. 0.17 ng/L).

The Naches River had elevated PCB levels compar ed to the upper Yakima River at Roza Dam, but during the irrigation season only. Gra nger Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway both appeared to be significant PCB sources, subs tantially exceeding the human health criterion during the irrigation season. The N aches River was at the human h ealth criterion in the spring. Lower PCB concentrations were observed in most areas after the end of irrigation. The chronic aquatic life criterion for PCBs (14 ng/L) was never approached in any of these samples.

PCBs are associated with urban/industrial applica tions more so than agriculture. They were used in closed applications (e.g., capacitor, transformers, heat tran sfer and hydraulic fluids) and, to a lesser extent, open-end applications (e.g., flame re tardants, inks, adhesive s, carbonless paper, paints, pesticide extenders, and plasticizers) (ATSDR, 2000).

g Total PCBs is the sum of detected concentrations of the 209 individual PCB compounds analyzed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 103 In contrast to other chemicals in this study, t oxaphene’s chronic aquatic life criterion is more restrictive than its human hea lth criterion (0.2 ng/L vs. 0.73-0.75 ng/L). The acute aquatic life criterion for toxaphene, however, is relatively high at 730 ng/L.

Table 30. Estimated PCB and Toxaphene Concentra tions in the Yakima Ri ver, Tributaries, and Irrigation Returns du ring Spring and Fall 2007 (ng/L, parts per trillion).

Location Total PCBs Toxaphene May-June Oct.-Nov. May-June Oct.-Nov. Mainstem Easton Dam 0.12 UJ 0.034 J 0.08 UJ 0.08 UJ

Ellensburg Water

Co. Diversion 0.026 J 0.057 J 0.10 UJ 0.08 UJ

Roza Dam 0.050 J 0.019 J 0.19 J 0.08 UJ Sunnyside Dam 0.057 J 0.011 J 0.23 J 0.10 J Prosser Dam 0.14 J 0.070 J 0.31 J 0.13 J Horn Rapids Dam 0.14 J 0.020 J 0.37 J 0.10 J Tributaries/Returns Wilson Creek* 0.041 J 0.039 J 0.52 J 0.13 J Naches River 0.18 J 0.016 J 0.12 J 0.09 UJ Moxee Drain 0.078 J 0.080 J 0.73 J 0.15 J Granger Drain 0.49 J 0.27 J 0.87 J 0.30 J Sulphur Creek 0.80 J 0.12 J 2.9 J 0.70 J Spring Creek 0.11 J 0.086 J 0.43 J 0.19 J *Wilson Creek PCB data for May-June are from a sample collected during same time frame in 2008. U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated value.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 104 Figure 44. Estimated PCB and Toxaphene Concen trations in the Mainstem Yakima River, Tributaries, and Irrigatio n Returns during and after the 2007 Irrigation Season (non-detects plotted at zero). 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9ng/L (parts per trillion) May-June Oct.-Nov. 

### Total PCBs

Human Health Criterion 

### Upper Yakima River Lower Yakima River

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5ng/L (parts per trillion) 

### May-June Oct.-Nov. Toxaphene

Human Health Criterion Aquatic Life Criterion



### Upper Yakima River Lower Yakima River

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 105 Toxaphene levels gradually increased in the mainstem Yakima River moving downstream from Easton to Horn Rapids Dam below Kiona. Du ring the irrigation season, toxaphene was below detection limits down to at least Ellensburg (Ellensburg Water Co. Diversion). Wilson Creek, which enters the Yakima at Ellensburg, had an elevated toxaphene concentration of 0.52 ng/L. Further downstream, levels rose to 0.19 ng/L at Roza Dam, and 0.23 ng/L by Sunnyside Dam just below the city of Yakima, slightly exceed ing the chronic aquatic life criterion. Between Sunnyside Dam and Horn Rapids, toxaphene nearly doubled to 0.37 ng/L. After the end of the irrigation season, toxaphene continued to exhibit increased concentra tions in the lower river, but remained within criteria.

Toxaphene substantially exceeded the chronic aquatic life criterion in Wilson Creek, Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, and especial ly Sulphur Creek Wasteway. This occurred primarily during the irrigation season, at which time the 0.2 ng/L cr iterion was exceeded by a factor of 2-4 in Wilson Creek, Moxee Drain, and Granger Drain, a nd by more than a factor of 10 in Sulphur Creek Wasteway (2.9 ng/L). Concentrations decreas ed markedly in all the four drains after the end of irrigation, but remained elevated in Sulp hur Creek, exceeding the crit erion by a factor of 3. Toxaphene was at or above the human hea lth criterion in thr ee of these returns.

As previously noted, toxaphene was also detect ed in whole water samples from Moxee Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway during routine mo nitoring water quality monitoring. The Moxee Drain detections were estimated at 3.5 and 7.0 ng/L on 5/2/07 and 5/23/07, respectively. The Sulphur Creek Wasteway detec tions were estimated at 4.3 and 4.1 ng/L on 5/24/07 and 7/24/07, respectively. These concentrati ons are much higher than the av erage values seen in the SPMDs. All other whole water samples from these drains were below the report ing limit of 3 ng/L.

Toxaphene is primarily an agricultural chemical , once used on cotton, fruit, vegetables, small grains, and livestock (ATSDR, 1996 ). 80-85% of the toxaphene produced in the U.S. was used on cotton or soybeans in the southeast U.S. It s secondary major use for parasite control on livestock may be noteworthy in connection with the high toxaphe ne levels in Sulphur Creek Wasteway. The Sulfur Creek drainage has a pa rticularly high concentration of dairies and feedlots, with approximately 150 confined anim al feeding operations (Carmack, 2008). Many of these were in existence prio r to the ban on toxaphene in 1990.

No low-level data were obtaine d on PCB or toxaphene levels in the Yakima basin surface water from December through April. Results from stor mwater sampling, described later in this report, suggest there is potential for el evated concentrations during this period. Due to the expense and difficulty of analyzing these chemicals, there are no useful data on histori cal levels of PCBs or toxaphene in Yakima surface water.

The PCB and toxaphene concentrations measured in the Yakima mainstem were lower than would be predicted from the fish samples Ecol ogy collected the previ ous year. Total PCBs exceeded the human health criterion in most of the fish species analyzed in 2006. Toxaphene exceeded the human health criterion in some lowe r river species. In the two sets of SPMD samples analyzed in 2007, several tributaries exceeded human health criteria for PCBs and toxaphene, but the mainstem did not exceed for human health.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 106 Several factors contribute to this apparent discrepancy. First, 2007 was preceded by several years of lower than average streamflows whic h affords less dilution for PCBs and toxaphene discharges. Second, the 2007 result s do not include the winter or early spring when there is potential for elevated PCB and toxaphene leve ls. Third, the EPA bioconcentration factors (BCFs) used to calculate the human heath criter ia are based on fish uptake from water only. Food is known to be an especially important pathway for PCBs (Mackay and Fraser, 2000). Finally, the EPA BCFs are national averages th at do not necessarily correspond closely to the BCF for every fish species and location.

Loads

Table 31 has estimates of PCB and toxaphene loads in the Yakima River during the first part of the irrigation season (May-June SPMD data). The calculations are based on the average flow during the deployment period. Flow data were obtained from the USBR Yakima Hydromet website ( www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/yakima/yakwebarcread.html ), USGS website ( http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis ), or gauged in the field (Spr ing Creek). Half the reporting limit was used where a chemical was not dete cted. Figure 45 shows the loads plotted in downstream order from Easton to Horn Rapids.

Table 31. Estimates of PCB and To xaphene Loads during May-June 2007 (grams per day).

Location Average Flow Total PCBs Toxaphene (cfs) Mainstem Easton Dam 936 ~0.14 † ~0.09 † Ellensburg Water Co. Diversion 4,290 0.28 ~0.50 † Roza Dam 2,676 0.33 1.2 Sunnyside Dam 5,143 0.72 2.9 Prosser Dam 4,465 1.5 3.4 Horn Rapids Dam 5,519 1.9 5.0 Tributaries/Returns Wilson Creek 545/556* 0.06 0.70 Naches River 3,590 1.6 1.1 Moxee Drain 76 0.01 0.14 Granger Drain 26 0.03 0.06 Sulphur Cr. Wasteway 247 0.48 1.8 Spring Creek 56 0.02 0.05 *In Wilson Creek, PCB data are for 2008 (556 cfs); toxaphene data are for 2007 (545 cfs). † Not detected; load calculated at half the reporting limit.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 107 Figure 45. Estimates of PCB and Toxaphene Load s in the Yakima River during May-June, 2007 (nondetects plotted at half the detection limit, see Table 31).

Mainstem loads of PCBs and toxaphene increased substantially in the lower river. The PCB loads from the Naches River and Sulphur Creek Wa steway stand out among lower river sources. Sulphur Creek also carried a large toxaphene load compared to the mainstem. The toxaphene load in the Naches River was comparable to the load from the upper Yakima River. The relatively high PCB and toxaphene loads in the Naches are more by virtue of flow than concentration. 0.14 0.28 0.33 0.72 1.5 1.9

0.06 1.6

0.01 0.03 0.48

0.02 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0grams per day Mainstem Tributaries/Returns



### Total PCBs

0.09 0.50 1.2 2.9 3.4 5.0

0.70 1.1 0.14 0.06 1.8

0.05 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0grams per day Mainstem Tributaries/Returns



### Toxaphene

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 108 

## Suspended Sediment

Concentrations

This study analyzed suspended sediment as TSS. Routine monitoring results for TSS in surface water are summarized in Table 32 for the 2007 irrigation season, whic h was the focus of sampling effort. The complete data are in Appendix J.

Table 32. Summary of Results from Monitori ng Suspended Sediment (TSS) in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season (mg/L, parts per million; N=13).

Location Median Mean 90th Percentile Maximum

Mainstem Yakima River at Harrison 10 11 17 24 Yakima River at Parker 10 12 16 27 Yakima River at Euclid 14 23 54 67 Yakima River at Kiona 11 19 42 76 Tributaries Naches River 7 9 14 29 Moxee Drain 61 73 124 139 Granger Drain 27 67 163 180 Sulphur Creek Wasteway 26 35 73 80 Spring Creek 14 37 85 218



### Figure 46 plots the individual TSS results fo r the lower Yakima mainstem for April 2007 through March 2008. TSS varied directly with flow . Except for the December storm event, the highest concentrations occurred during the first half of the irri gation season. Numerous other studies have shown that suspended sediment in the Yakima River is linked to the irrigation cycle.

After irrigation, TSS levels were generally low in the mainstem, except for the December storm when a concentration of 342 mg/L was recorded at Euclid. The storm samples were taken over a two-day period (12/4-5/08) and not timed to make the results directly comparable among sites. The Harrison TSS sample (6 mg/L) was collected be fore the storm began to affect the river.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 109 Figure 46. Total Suspended Solids Concentrations in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River during 2007-08, Showing the Flow at Kiona. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Flow (cfs)TSS (mg/L) Parker
Euclid
Kiona
Harrison
Kiona Flow Irrigation Season (see detail below)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Flow (cfs)TSS (mg/L) Parker

Euclid

Kiona

Harrison

Kiona Flow Irrigation Season

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 110 Figure 47 illustrates the average TSS concentr ations during the 2007 irrigation season. TSS levels at Harrison and the Naches River were generally similar and increased only slightly by Parker. As with other water quality parameters , the major TSS impacts to the river occurred between Parker and Euclid. On average, TSS c oncentrations in the Yakima River at Euclid (23 mg/L) and at Kiona (19 mg/L) were higher th an Harrison (11 mg/L) by about a factor of 2. Maximum TSS levels were recorded on June 6-7, at which time the downstream increase in TSS was by about a factor of 3 (from 24 mg/L to 76 mg/L) (Figure 48 ).

Figure 47. Average Total Suspended Solids Con centrations in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season (mg/L = parts per million; concen trations proportional to circle area).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 111 Figure 48. Average Total Suspended Solids Concen trations in the Lower Yakima River on June 6-7, 2007 (mg/L = parts per million; concentrat ions proportional to circle area).

The TSS concentrations measur ed in the four major return s during 2007-08 are plotted in Figure 49. The highest levels, approaching or exceeding 100 mg/L, occurred when water was being applied to fields early in the irrigation season. Concentrations decreased substantially as the growing season progressed, ofte n dropping to levels at or belo w those seen during the winter.

TSS was elevated in Granger Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway on several occasions during the winter, even though flows were low. Weather records and field notes indicate snow or rain around the time these samples were collected.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 112 Figure 49. Total Suspended Solids and Flow in Major Lower Yakima River Irrigation Returns during 2007-08. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Flow (cfs)TSS (mg/L)

TSS
Flow Moxee

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 50 100 150 200Flow (cfs)TSS (mg/L)

TSS

Flow Granger

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Flow (cfs)TSS (mg/L)

TSS

Flow Sulphur

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 50 100 150 200 250Flow (cfs)TSS (mg/L)

TSS
Flow Spring

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 113 Loads

Beales ratio estimator (Dolan et al., 1981) was used to calculat e suspended sediment loads for the 2007 irrigation season (Table 33, Figure 50). The Beales method uses the ratio of the load to the flow on sampled days, adjusted by the mean flow for that time period (from continuous flow data) to estimate the mean load over the period of interest. This weighting approach avoids missing major components of the load during times when TSS was not measured. Flow data for the calculations were obtained from the USBR ( www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/ ) and USGS ( http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/sw ) websites.

The Beales method was used in the two prev ious Yakima River suspended sediment and pesticide TMDLs. Beales estimator is not approp riate for the pesticide data because it was not always closely correlated with flow.

Suspended sediment data were not obtained on the Roza Power Return (from the diversion at Roza Dam above Harrison), the Wapato Canal Diversion, or the Sunnyside Canal Diversion, all of which are located between the Naches Ri ver and Parker. A significant portion of the mainstem flow is diverted into the Wapato and Sunnyside canals (up to 1,000 to 2,000 cfs, respectively). Therefore the suspended sediment load calculated for Parker cannot be directly compared to the combined load from the Yaki ma River at Harrison and the Naches River. Previous studies concluded the load from the Roza Return was a third to half the load in the Naches River (Joy and Patterson, 19 97; Morace et al., 1999).

Table 33. Estimates of Suspended Sediment Lo ads in the Mainstem Yakima River, Naches River, and Major Irrigation Return s during the 2007 Irrigation Season.

Location Average Flow (cfs) Tons per Day Tons per Season Yakima River at Harrison 1,566 58 12,320 Naches River at mouth 1,818 66 14,072 Yakima River at Parker 1,945 89 18,886 Yakima River at Euclid 2,603 263 55,718 Yakima River at Kiona 2,906 236 49,974 Moxee Drain 63 13 2,810 Granger Drain 37 5 1,149 Sulphur Creek Wasteway 306 30 6,449 Spring Creek 46 5 1,161

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 114 Figure 50. Estimates of Suspended Sediment Lo ads in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season.

The suspended sediment load in Moxee Drain (13 tons per day) was 15% of the Parker load (89 tons per day). Loading between Parker and Euclid increased th ree-fold, from 89 tons per day to 263 tons per day (18, 886 vs. 55,718 tons over th e entire irrigation se ason). The combined loading from Granger Drain (5 tons per day) and Sulphur Creek Wasteway (30 tons per day) accounted for 35 tons per day to this reach (7,5 98 tons for the season). Therefore, roughly 20% of the increased loading can be attributed to Grange r Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway. The remaining 80% was from other sources. USGS attributed a large portion of the suspended sediment load to right-bank tributaries and re turns that flow through the Yakama Reservation (Morace et al., 1999).

There was a net suspended sediment loss of a pproximately 10% between Euclid and Kiona (27 tons per day; 5,700 tons per season). Earlie r studies estimated losse s of 50-150 tons per day to this reach (Joy and Patterson, 1997; Morace, 1 999) and attributed it to sedimentation brought about by the reduced channel velocities between Sunnyside and Prosser. A small portion of the loss can also be attributed to the Kennewick Ir rigation District and Ki ona Canal diversions (<300 cfs) above Kiona.

The Yakima River at Kiona was transporting approximately 240 t ons of suspended sediment per day or about 50,000 tons over the 2007 irrigation season. Under similar conditions of water supply during the 1995 irrigation seas on, the suspended sediment load at Kiona was estimated to have been more than twice that at 57 4 tons per day (Joy and Patterson, 1997).

Only two sets of samples (May and August) we re collected from other lower Yakima River tributaries and returns during th e 2007 irrigation season (Appendi x K). Based on these limited data, the average combined TSS load was 48 pounds per day, which is comparable to the combined load of 53 pounds per day from Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek 58 89 263 236

66

13 5 30 5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300Tons per Day Mainstem Tributaries/Returns

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 115 Wasteway, and Spring Creek. Thus, these other discharges appear to contribute a significant share of the sediment load.

These results give an incomplete picture of su spended sediment sources and transport in the lower Yakima River drainage. Detailed mass bala nces for sediment can be found in the above referenced reports and in Ebbert et al. (2002).

Volatile Suspended Solids

Improved water clarity in the lower Yakima Rive r has led to increased growth of algae and aquatic plants in recent years. Algae and plant fragments form part of the TSS load. A large contribution could potentially lead to the wrong conclusion about suspended sediment sources and reasons for noncomplianc e with turbidity criteria and TMDL targets.

An analysis for total non-volatile suspended so lids (TNVSS) was therefore included in the 2007- 08 water quality study to assess th e relative importance of plant- derived material in the lower mainstem. Volatile solids (TSS minus TNVSS) were assumed to represent algae and plant fragments. The results are summarized as percent volatile solids in Table 34.

Table 34. Volatile Solids as Percent of Total Suspended Solids in the Yakima River, Naches River, and Four Major Irrigation Returns, 2007-08.

Location N= Mean Yakima River at Harrison 18 25% Naches River 18 21% Yakima River at Parker 18 18% Yakima River at Euclid 18 16% Yakima River at Kiona 18 16% Granger Drain 19 11% Moxee Drain 19 17% Sulfur Creek Wasteway 19 12% Spring Creek 19 18%



### On average, there was a decrease in relative amounts of volatile solids moving downstream from Harrison Bridge to Kiona, suggesting that alg ae and plant fragments we re a progressively less important part of the suspended sediment load. The volatile solids fraction in the four major irrigation returns was similar to or slightly less than the mainstem at Parker, Euclid, and Kiona. There were no significant differe nces among sites (Kruskal-Wallis test). Thus, aquatic growths did not appear to be an importa nt factor to take into account in assessing suspended sediment sources and impacts to the Yakima River.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 116 

## Turbidity

Turbidity was analyzed in conjunction with TSS. The turbidity result s for the 2007 irrigation season are summarized in Table 35. As with TSS, turbidity levels were generally low after the end of irrigation. The individual turbidity data are in Appendix J and K.

Table 35. Summary of Results from Monitoring Turbidity in the Lower Yakima River during the 2007 Irrigation Season (NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; N=13)

. Location Median Mean 90th Percentile Maximum

Mainstem Yakima River at Harrison 4.2 5.1 7.6 12 Yakima River at Parker 5.3 6.6 11 17 Yakima River at Euclid 7.4 10 22 27 Yakima River at Kiona 4.2 8.7 19 32 Tributaries/Returns Naches River 6.6 7.6 12 17 Moxee Drain 16 17 22 33 Granger Drain 12 22 41 60 Sulphur Creek Wasteway 9.4 12 18 25 Spring Creek 5.4 12 31 50



### Turbidity Criteria and TMDL Targets

The adverse effects of suspended sediment on fi sh and wildlife, water supplies, and aesthetic enjoyment are addressed through Washington State’s turbidity criteria. Turbidity is caused by the presence of suspended matter such as clay, silt, finely divi ded organic and inorganic matter, and microscopic organisms.

As previously described, the Lower Yakima River Suspende d Sediment and DDT TMDL set a schedule for meeting numeric turbidity targets in th e mainstem, tributaries, and irrigation returns. Milestones to be achieved by 2007 include the following:

 By 2002: “The Yakima River mainstem will comp ly with the turbidity target of not more than a 5 NTU increase between the confluence of the Yakima and Naches Rivers and the Van Giesan Road bridge at West Richland (RM 8.4).”

 By 2007: “The mouths of all tributaries and drains, and all points within all basin tributaries and drains, will comply with the 90 th 

### percentile turbidity target of 25 NTU.”

The mainstem turbidity target was based on the crite ria in the state standards. The criteria state that turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU over back ground when turbidities are 50 NTU or less. When background turbidity is more the 50 NTU, no more than a 10% increase is allowed. The 25 NTU target for tributaries and drains wa s intended to protect fish and other aquatic organisms, and to assist in compliance with th e turbidity target for the mainstem. 25 NTU was

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 117 derived from a review of EPA guidance, recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences, Idaho’s turbidity criteria, and the scie ntific literature. The 90th percentile is the concentration exceeded by no more than 10% of sa mples. The 25 NTU target was to be applied to the irrigation season.

Joy and Patterson (1997) assessed the turbidity background in the lower Yakima River during the 1994 and 1995 irrigation seasons by calculating the 90 th 

### percentile below the confluence of the Yakima and Naches Rivers. The 90th percentil e allows for seasonal variability, supports full beneficial use protection under EPA policy (EPA, 1995), and is adequate for background definition under Ecology policy (Ecology, 1996). Background turbidity was calculated in the same way for the 2007-08 water quality study. Coffin et al. (2006) reported background turbidity during TMDL effectiv eness monitoring over the 2003 ir rigation season, but based it on samples collected at Terrace Heights Bridge belo w the Naches River confluence. These four separate determinations of the turbidity backgr ound for the lower Yakima River are compared in Table 36.

Table 36. Background Turbidity (90th percentile) in the Lower Yakima River: Previous TMDL, Effectiveness Monitori ng, and Present Study.

Year Background Turbidity Background +5 NTU Data Source

1994 irrigation season* 5 NTU 10 NTU Joy & Patterson (1997) 1995 irrigation season* 9 NTU 14 NTU Joy & Patterson (1997) 2003 irrigation season † 10 NTU 15 NTU Coffin et al. (2006) 2007 irrigation season** 10 NTU 15 NTU present study *June-October samples. † 4/16/03 - 10/15/03 samples. **4/4/07 - 10/3/07 samples.



### During the irrigation season, bac kground turbidity in the lower Yakima River was 5 NTU in 1994, 9 NTU in 1995, and 10 NTU in 2003 and 2007. Less turbidity was experienced in 1994 because river flows were down due to low water supply. Turbidity was essentially the same (9 -10 NTU) during the 1995, 2003, and 2007 irrigati on seasons, when flows were comparable and closer to normal. The 1994 and 1995 result s might have been hi gher if the turbidity measurements had included April and May, as in 2003 and 2007.

Figure 51 shows the individual turbidity measurem ents in the lower Yakima River at Parker, Euclid, and Kiona during 2007-08. The results ar e compared to the 5 NTU increase over background allowed in the turbidity criteria a nd set as the TMDL target. Because background turbidity exceeded 50 NTU during the December stor m event, the criterion for those results was set for a 10% incr ease above background.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 118 Figure 51. Turbidity in the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08 Compared to the State Turbidity Criteria and 2002 TMDL Target.

Failure to meet the turbidity target in 2007-08 wa s primarily confined to the first half of the irrigation season and limited to the Yakima River at Euclid and Kiona. The Yakima was always meeting the target at Parker. As with suspende d sediment, the area where most of the turbidity increase occurred was between Parker and Eucl id. Table 37 summarizes how often turbidity exceeded the TMDL target in the lower Yakima River during 2007-08. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180NTU TMDL Target

Euclid

Kiona

Parker Irrigation Season (see detail below)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35NTU TMDL Target

Euclid

Kiona

Parker Irrigation Season

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 119 Table 37. Percent of Samples Exceeding the Exis ting TMDL Turbidity Target in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River during 2007-08.

Time Period Percent of Samples Exceeding Parker Euclid Kiona 2007 Irrigation Season (n =13) 0% 23% 23% November 07-March 08 (n=5) 0% 40% 20% 2007-08 overall (n=18) 0% 28% 22%



### The 40% exceedance of the turbidity target at Euclid during the winter may overstate the extent of the problem. The two samples in question were only marginally above the target (7.7 vs. 6.0 NTU in February and 11 vs. 9.0 NTU in March). Note, however, that sample size during the winter months was small (N=5) and turbidity events may have been missed.

Compliance of the four major returns with the TMDL 90 th 

### percentile 25 NTU target for lower Yakima River tributaries and drains is illust rated in Figure 52. During the 2007 irrigation season, the 90 th 

### percentile turbidities in Moxee Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway were well within the target (22 and 18 NT U, respectively). Granger Dr ain and, to a lesser extent, Spring Creek exceeded the target (41 and 31 NTU, respectively). Additional turbidity data on these returns for 2007 is discussed starting on page 121.

Figure 52. Compliance with the 90th Percent ile 25 NTU Turbidity Target in Four Major Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during the 200 7 Irrigation Season. (N=13)

The March 2008 results are not included in Fi gure 52. A turbidity reading of 90 NTU was recorded in Granger Drain on Ma rch 28 at the start of the 2008 irrigation season, substantially exceeding the 25 NTU TMDL target. Turbidity in the three other returns ranged from 13-28 NTU on that date. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Moxee Drain Granger Drain Sulphur Creek Spring CreekTurbidity (NTU)

Median 90th Percentile 2007 TMDL Target 2007 Irrigation Season (4/4-10/4 samples)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 120 One significant difference between Sulphur Cr eek Wasteway and Granger Drain is that Sulphur Creek receives major operational spills from both the Roza and Sunnyside canals, while Granger receives only minor spills from laterals and individual deliveri es (Zuroske, 2004). Spill water is unused canal water, typically low in suspended sediment. Spring Creek also receives occasional operational spills (Joy and Patterson, 1997).

Figure 53 shows how turbidity levels fluctuated in the four re turns over the course of the 2007 irrigation season into March 2008. Exceedances of 25 NTU were associated with periods of increasing flow, most notably during the early irrigation season. The results for Granger Drain suggest the 25 NTU target was chronically ex ceeded from April through June, whereas the exceedances appeared to be more sporadic in the other returns.

Figure 53. Turbidity and Flow in Four Major Lower Yakima River Ir rigation Returns during 2007-08. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Flow (cfs)Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity
Flow Moxee 2007 Turbidity Target

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Flow (cfs)Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity
Flow Granger

2007 Turbidity Target

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 121 Figure 53. (continued).

Consistent with TSS, turbidity was elevated in Sulphur Creek Wastew ay on several occasions during the winter, even though flows were low. A similar but more modest turbidity increase was also seen in Granger Drain. As previously noted, there was snow or rain around the time these samples were collected.

The Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control (RSB OJC) also monitored turbidity in Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, Spring Creek, and Snipes Creek (a Spring Creek tributary) during 2007-08. The RSBOJC Water Quality Labor atory has been collecting samples at these locations since 1997, twice a month during the irrigation season and monthly during the non-irrigation season. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Flow (cfs)Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity
Flow Sulphur 2007 Turbidity Target

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Flow (cfs)Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity
Flow Spring

Turbidity Target for 2007

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 122 The RSBOJC turbidity data that correspond to the monitoring Ecology did in Granger Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway during the 2007-08 water quality study ar e plotted in Figure 54. The data on all five returns fo r the 2007 irrigation season are compared in Table 38.

Figure 54. Comparison of Turbidity Data Colle cted by Ecology and the Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control during 2007-08 (unpublished RSBOJC data provided by Elaine Brouillard). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Turbidity(NTU) Ecology RSBOJC

Granger Drain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Turbidity(NTU) Ecology RSBOJC

Sulphur Creek Wasteway

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 123 Table 38. Comparison of Turbidity Data Co llected by Ecology and the Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control during th e 2007 Irrigation Season (NTU).

Granger Drain Sulphur Cr. Wasteway Spring Cr. at mouth Spring Cr. ab. Snipes Snipes Cr.

Ecology RSBOJC RSBOJC Ecology RSBOJC Ecology RSBOJC N = 14 14 14 13 14 14 14 Minimum 5.2 6.8 3.9 6.1 2.9 2.9 1.5 Median 12 15 9.4 11 5.4 6.8 4.4 Mean 22 25 12 12 12 8.9 9.6 90th 41 48 18 20 31 15 21 Maximum 60 56 25 25 50 21 58 (Unpublished RSBOJC data provided by Elaine Brouillard.)



### Except for a few instances when peak turbidity le vels occurred on different days, the results for Granger Drain and Sulphur Creek Wasteway are in good agreement and not significantly different (K-S two sample test, p>0.3). For the 2007 irrigation season, both data sets concur in finding that Granger Drain exceeded the 90 th 

### percentile TMDL turbid ity target of 25 NTU and that Sulphur Creek Wasteway was meeting the target.

Ecology’s monitoring site for Spring Creek was near its point of discharge to the Yakima River and below its confluence with Snipes Creek. RSBOJC monitors Spring and Snipes Creeks separately. Ecology recorded two elevated turbid ity readings (50 and 33 NTU) for lower Spring Creek in late May (5/24) and early June (6/7) of 2007. These two values were sufficiently high to raise the 90 th 

### percentile in Ecology’s da ta set to 31 NTU, which exceeds the 25 NTU target.

RSBOJC sampled Spring and Snipes Creeks two da ys earlier (5/22 and 6/05). Turbidity was low in Spring Creek on both days, but high in Snipes Creek on 6/05 (58 NTU). The 90 th 

### percentile turbidities in RSBOJC’s data for the 2007 irrigation season were 15 and 21 NTU, respectively, for Spring and Snipes Creeks. Thus, based on RS BOJC’s results both returns were meeting the TMDL turbidity target. Taken in their en tirety, the combined Ecology and RSBOJC data indicate the Spring Creek disc harge to the Yakima River was meeting the 25 NTU turbidity target during the 2007 irrigation season.

Table 39 summarizes Ecology’s turb idity findings and TMDL target compliance for 2007-08 for the lower Yakima River, incorporating RSBOJC’s findings for Spring and Snipes Creeks in the conclusions.

The turbidity data for the 23 ot her lower river tributaries a nd returns from Ecology’s 2007-08 screening survey are plotted in Figure 55. Only one set of samples was collected during the spring when turbidity is typi cally the highest. Satus 302 ( 42 and 80 NTU), South Drain (39 NTU), and DID #7 (35 NTU) exceeded the 25 NTU ta rget during the irriga tion season. Elevated turbidity was also recorded in the winter in Selah Creek and, ma rginally, in Selah Ditch. Selah Creek is an intermittent stream. The single samp le collected here was taken during a period of snowmelt.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 124 Table 39. Compliance with Turbidity Criteria and TMDL Targets in the Lower Yakima River Drainage during 2007-08.

Waterbody Meeting Criteria/Target? Yakima at Parker Yes Yakima at Euclid No Yakima at Kiona No Naches River Yes Moxee Drain Yes Granger Drain No Sulphur Creek Wasteway Yes Spring Creek Yes



### Figure 55. Turbidity in Screening Survey Samp les from 23 Other Tributaries and Irrigation Returns to the Lower Yakima River during 2007-08.

Additional turbidity data for a number of the tr ibutaries and returns from the screening survey have been collected by the Yakama Nation, C onservation Districts, Yakima Area Creeks Bacteria TMDL, and USGS. These data we re not reviewed for the present report. 

### 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

T u r b i d i t y ( N T U )



### 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 

### Percent of Samples (n=85) Satus 302 5/17/07

Satus 302 8/15/07 South Dr. 5/17/07 Selah Cr. 2/11/08 DID 7 5/16/07

Selah Ditch 11/26/07 2007 TMDL Target



### Fraction of Samples (n=85)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 125 Comparison with Historical Turbidity Data

Many farmers along the Yakima River have adopted contemporary soil erosion Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet the 5- and 10-year targets in the Lower Yakima River Suspended Sediment and DDT TMDL . The effectiveness of these measures in reducing turbidity was assessed by Coffin et al. (2006) for the pe riod between 1995 and 2003 and has been widely reported. While it is beyond the scope of the pres ent report to do a comp arable assessment, two examples illustrate the magnitude of the water qu ality improvements that have been realized. A detailed TMDL effectiveness monitoring report drawing on the 2007-08 data will be prepared separately by Ecology.

1. Figure 56 shows the 90 th 

### percentile turbidity in the four ma jor irrigation returns to the lower Yakima River during the 1995, 2003, and 2007 ir rigation seasons, based on Ecology’s monitoring programs. Substantial turbidity reductions occurred in all of these returns be tween 1995 and 2003. By 2003, Moxee Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, a nd Spring Creek were meeting the 25 NTU target at least 90% of the time. Although falli ng short of the target, the largest improvement was seen in Granger Drain. Data showing d eclining turbidity and TSS levels in lower Yakima River irrigation returns are also reported by Ebbert et al. (2002), Zuroske (2004), and Fuhrer et al. (2004).

Figure 56. 90th Percentile Turbidity in Four Major Returns to the Lower Yakima River during the 1995, 2003, and 2007 Irrigation Seasons. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Moxee Granger Sulphur SpringTurbidity (NTU)

1995

2003

2007 (335 NTU)

TMDL Target

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 126 2. The Ecology Freshwater Monitoring Unit (FMU ) examined trends in the 1995-2008 turbidity data for their ambient monitoring station on th e Yakima River at Kiona, using a Seasonal Kendall test (Hallock, 2007). The analysis focused on the irrigation season and only included data from April through Oct ober. These data can be found at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw_riv/rv_main.html

.

FMU concluded that:

 For the whole period there is a strong (p<0.01) h 

### decreasing trend in tu rbidity (Figure 57). This trend is a result of a strong decline in turbidity from the beginning of the period through August 2005.

 Visually, there was a moderate decrease pr ior to 2000 and a strong decrease in 2000-2005.

 The higher turbidities have been back up sin ce August 2005. In months when turbidity is down, it is still fairly low compared to pre-2001.

 Peak turbidities are hi ghest in April and May and lowest in August through October.

 There is a decreasing trend in flow for the whole period (p=0.02).

 Adjusted for flow, there is still a downward tre nd in turbidity for the full period (p=0.06).

 There is significant seasonality in the trend. After adjusting fo r flow, there is a significant increasing trend in April (p=0.01). Flow-adjusted turbidity declined in all other months, though the decline was not always significant.

h The p-value is the probability that the observed relationship among samples occurred by pure chance. For example, a p-value of .05 (i.e., 1 in 20) indicates there is a 5% probability that the relation is by chance alone.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 127 Figure 57. Trend Analysis of Ec ology’s Ambient Monitoring Data on Turbidity in the Yakima River at Kiona (Dave Hallock, Ecology FMU).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 128 

## Permitted Discharges

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

Eighteen municipal wastewater trea tment plants (WWTPs) that discharge to surface waters in the Yakima River basin were monitored quarterly fo r pesticides, PCBs, TSS, and turbidity between June 2007 and March 2008. Seventy-two sets of sample s were analyzed in all. Facility locations were previously shown in Figure 13.

The three Yakama Reservation WWTPs – Wapat o, Harrah, and Toppenish – were not sampled as these are under EPA jurisdiction. Ecology la cks regulatory authority to impose wasteload allocations and NPDES discharge limitations on Yakama Nation lands. Pesticides were not analyzed for the three upper river facilities – Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and Kittitas – due to the existing TMDL for these compounds.

Monitoring results for WWTP effluent are summar ized in Table 40. The complete data are in Appendix N.

WWTP effluent contains numerous substances that interfere with a pesticide analysis, making it difficult to achieve low detection limits. As a result, pesticide reporting limits in the effluent samples were typically in the range of 2.0 – 5.5 ng/L vs. less than 0.1 ng/L in surface water. The reporting limit for toxaphene in WWTP effluent wa s 25 – 27 ng/L compared to 3 ng/L for whole surface water samples and about 0.1 ng/L in SPMDs.

The only 303(d) listed pesticides detected in WWTP effluent were the current-use insecticides chlorpyrifos and endosulfan, 33% and 12% of sa mples, respectively. Toxaphene was also not detected.

Chlorpyrifos was most frequently reported in effluent from the Cowiche, Yakima, Sunnyside, and Mabton WWTPs (75% of samples). Cowiche and Yakima were also the only facilities where endosulfan was detected ( 100% and 50% of samples, respec tively). These details can be seen in Appendix N.

The maximum concentrations recorded were 11 ng/L for chlorpyrifos and 46 ng/L for endosulfan. These concentrations are within human health and aquati c life criteria.

The analytical method employed for PCBs has greater specificity a nd is less subject to interferences. PCBs were detect ed in almost every effluent sa mple (96%). The overall median and average total PCB con centrations were 0.37 and 0.58 ng/L, respectively.

Figure 58 plots the PCB data and compares the data with the human health criterion of 0.17 ng/L. Because the Yakima River approaches or exceeds human health criteria for PCBs it has no excess loading capacity. Therefore the e ffluent data are compared directly to the criterion, rather than allowing for dilution in the receiving waters.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 129 Table 40. Summary of Results from Monitoring 303(d) Listed Pesticides, PCBs, TSS, and Turbidity in Final Effluents fr om Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Yakima Basin during 2007-08 (quarterly samples from 18 facilities).

DDT DDE DDD Dieldrin (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) No. of Samples 60 60 60 60 Detection Frequency (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Median Concentration 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U Mean Concentration 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 90th Percentile Concentration 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U Maximum Concentration 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan Chlordane Alpha-BHC (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) No. of Samples 60 60 60 60 Detection Frequency (%) 33% 12% 0% 0% Median Concentration 3.2 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U Mean Concentration 3.9 U 5.6 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 90th Percentile Concentration 5.7 J 5.4 J 5.1 U 5.1 U Maximum Concentration 11 J 46 J 5.5 U 5.5 U Total PCBs* Toxaphene TSS Turbidity (ng/L) (ng/L) (mg/L) (NTU) No. of Samples 72 60 72 72 Detection Frequency (%) 96% 0% 96% 100% Median Concentration 0.37 J 26 U 4 2

. 2 Mean Concentration 0.58 J 26 U 20 6.0 90th Percentile Concentration 0.96 J 27 U 25 6.0 Maximum Concentration 7.4 J 27 U 555 190 *Total PCBs is the sum of detected concentrations of the 209 PCB compounds analyzed. U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 130 Figure 58. PCB Concentrations in Final Effluents from WWTPs in the Yakima Basin during 2007-08 Compared to Human Health Criterion (quarterly samples fr om 18 facilities, ng/L = parts per trillion).

Eighty-two percent of the effluent samples ( 59 out of 72) exceeded the PCB human health criterion. Approximately half (52%) exceeded by mo re than a factor of 2. Substantially elevated concentrations greater than 1.0 ng/L (1.1-7.4 ng/L) were observed sporadically. Except for the occasional spike in concentration, most faciliti es were discharging a similar level of PCBs (Figure 59) i



### . The June 2007 sample from the Selah WWTP had an unusually high concentr ation of total PCBs at 7.4 ng/L. PCB levels in subsequent sample s were similar to WWTPs in other parts of the basin.

Aquatic life criteria for PCBs are relatively high: 14 ng/L for chronic exposure and 2,000 ng/L for acute exposure. These levels were not approached in any of the WWTP effluents.

i In box and whisker plots of this type, 50% of the resu lts fall within the box, the horizontal line representing the median. The whiskers show the range of values that are within a factor of 1.5 of the spread of the box. Asterisks and empty circles (next figure) are outsid e and far outside values, respectively.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 131 Figure 59. Total PCB Concentrations in Fina l Effluents from Yakima Basin WWTPs during 2007-08 (ng/L = parts per trillion).

The effluents tended to have higher PCB concentr ations during the winter compared to the irrigation season (Figure 60). Tota l PCBs gradually increased from early summer to late winter, with median concentrations going from 0.20 to 0.26 to 0.34 to 0.70 ng/L between June and March. The differences between sampling peri ods were statistically significant (p<0.05, Kruskal-Wallis test). Higher winter concentratio ns could be due to more surface runoff entering the collection systems. Stormwater samples fo r the present study showed that urban runoff has elevated PCBs levels (see Urba n Stormwater Runoff). Dilution by infiltration of irrigation water during the growing season could be an equally important factor.

Figure 60. PCB Concentrations in Yakima Basin WWTP Effl uents by Month of Sample Collection, 2007-08 (one outlier excluded: Selah WWTP 7,360 pg/L in June). C

L

E

ELU M ELE N

S B

U

R

G K

I TTI TA S S ELA H N

A

C

H

ES

C

O

W

I C

H

E Y

A

K

I M

A M

O

X

EE

B

U

EN

A ZI

LL

A

H

G

R

A

N

G

ER

S U

N

N

Y

S I D

E

S

S

P

O

R

T M

A

B

TO

N

G

R

A

N

D

V

I EW

P

R

O

S

S ER

B

EN T

O

N

C

I TY

W

R

I C

H

LA

N

D 

## 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T o t a l P C B s ( n g / L )



## June September December March 0 1 2 3

T o t a l P C B s ( n g / L )

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 132 Table 41 summarizes the PCBs, DDT, and dieldrin data that have been reported for WWTP effluents in other parts of Eastern Washington. These resu lts indicate that the PCB concentrations measured at Yakima basin facili ties are typical of WWTP e ffluent. The pesticide data are more limited, but suggest DDT compounds and dieldrin are char acteristically low in WWTP effluent, including facilitie s located in agricultu ral areas such as the Palouse, Okanogan, and Walla Walla.

Table 41. Summary of Low-Level PCB, DDT, and Dieldrin Data for Eastern Washington WWTP Effluents (ng/L; parts per trillion; mean values). Receiving Water/ Year N= Total PCBs Total DDT Dieldrin Reference WWTP Palouse River Lubliner (2009) Pullman 2007-08 3 1.4 NA 0.27 Colfax 2007-08 3 0.33 NA 0.20 Albion 2007-08 1 1.5 NA <0.03 Okanogan River Serdar (2006) Oroville 2001-02 2-3 <.65 0.9 NA Omak 2001-02 2-3 <.65 <1.6 NA Okanogan 2001-02 2-3 <.65 1.6 NA Walla Walla River

Johnson et al. (2004) Lubliner (2007) Walla Walla 2002-03 4 0.79 0.23 < 0.25 2006-07 3 0.38 NA NA College Place 2002-03 4 1.3 0.08 < 0.21 2006-07 3 0.30 NA NA Spokane River Golding (2002) Spokane 2001 2 1.8 NA NA Liberty Lake 2001 2 1.7 NA NA Yakima River present study 18 facility mean 2007-08 72 0.58 <2 <2 NA = not analyzed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 133 Estimates of PCB loading from Yakima ba sin WWTPs are shown in Table 42. Because pesticides were either not detected or were meeting water quality cr iteria, loads were not calculated.

Table 42. Summary of Total PCB Loads Measur ed in Final Effluents from Yakima Basin WWTPs during 2007-08.

Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Overall Mean Per WWTP Mean Flow (mgd) 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 Mean PCB Concentration (ng/L) 0.67 0.31 0.52 0.81 0.58 Mean PCB Load (mg/day) 4.2 3.0 4.0 3.8 3.7 WWTPs Combined Total Flow (mgd) 24 24 20 19 22 Total PCB Load (mg/day) 76 54 71 68 67 mgd = million gallons per day.



### The flow reported by each facility was used to calculate the total PCB load for each of the quarterly sampling events. The average facil ity was discharging approximately 0.6 ng/L total PCBs at a loading rate to the receiving waters of about 4 mg/day. The combined loading from all facilities averag ed 67 mg/day.

The loading rates measured during the four monitoring periods were similar. Decreasing effluent flow rates from June through Marc h acted to maintain a similar level of PCB loading even though concentrations we re on the increase.

TSS and turbidity levels in Yakima basin WWTP effluents were almost always low, indicating the treatment systems were operating properly. Ov erall median concentrations were 4 mg/L TSS and 2.2 NTU turbidity at the times these sample s were collected (Table 40). Although PCBs have an affinity for particulate matter, there was no evidence of a correlation between total PCBs and TSS (R 2 

### =0.19) j



### . In most instances, TSS concentrations were in compliance with the weekly average limit set by the NPDES permit (typically 45 mg/L). Three of the four effluent samples from the Port of Sunnyside WWTP represent upset conditions with elevated TSS (Appendix N), but the facility was not discharging to surface water at those times. NPDES permits for Yakima basin WWTPs do not contain discharge limits for pesticides or PCBs.

j R 2 indicates the percent of the PCB data that is explained by TSS (coefficient of determination).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 134 Figure 61 compares the average effluent flow rate on days of sample collection at each WWTP with the design flow. The NPDE S permits state that design f lows are not to be exceeded. M 

### ost facilities were operating at lower than design flow and thus may have additional treatment capacity. Cases where the sampled flow was at or above design flow were primarily limited to Moxee WWTP (wastewater now goes to Yaki ma WWTP) and the Port of Sunnyside WWTP (discharge was going to a sprayfie ld). The larger facilities we re always operating well below design flow (10-70% of design).

Figure 61. WWTP Effluent Fl ow during Monitoring Periods in 2007-08 vs. Design Flow (million gallons per day). 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 0.5 1.0Sampled Flow (mgd)

Design Flow (mgd) Sampled Flow =Design Flow

<1 MGD Facilities

0 5 10 15 20 25

0 5 10 15 20 25Sampled Flow (mgd)

Design Flow (mgd) Sampled Flow =Design Flow

>1 MGD Facilities

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 135 

## Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors

Quarterly monitoring was also conducted at the si x fruit packers and vegetable processors that discharge to surface water in the lower Yakima ba sin. Facility locations were previously shown in Figure 14.

Final effluents were analyzed for pesticides, TS S, and turbidity. Table 43 summarizes the results for 303(d) listed pesticides. Othe r pesticides were infrequently detected and concentrations were low (Appendix O). PCBs were not analyzed because these types of faciliti es are not known to be sources of PCBs.

Table 43. Summary of Results from Monitoring 303(d) Listed Pesticides and Toxaphene in Effluents from Six Fruit and Vegetable Processors in the Lower Yakima Basin during 2007-08 (quarterly samples; concentrations in ng/L, parts per trillion).

DDT DDE DDD No. of Samples 24 24 24 Detection Frequency (%) 46% 67% 67% Median Concentration 0.064 U 0.37 J 0.18 J Mean Concentration 0.51 J 1.0 J 0.40 J 90th Percentile Conc. 1.6 J 2.9 J 1.0 J Maximum Concentration 4.6 J 6.8 1.7 Dieldrin Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos No. of Samples 24 24 24 Detection Frequency (%) 50% 96% 58% Median Concentration 0.57 J 2.9 J 1.5 J Mean Concentration 0.73 J 11 J 2.7 J 90th Percentile Conc. 1.7 J 18 J 5.7 J Maximum Concentration 2.6 J 93 J 19 J Chlordane Alpha-BHC Toxaphene No. of Samples 24 24 24 Detection Frequency (%) 13% 25% 0% Median Concentration 0.063 U 0.063 U 3.1 U Mean Concentration 0.14 J 0.10 J 6.4 U 90th Percentile Conc. 0.2 J 0.18 16 U Maximum Concentration 1.3 J 0.35 30 U U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated concentration.



### Because of the likelihood that pesticides were present in these effluents, the samples were analyzed using low-level detection (0.061 – 1.2 ng/L, to 3.1 ng/L for toxaphene). DDT compounds, dieldrin, endosulfan, and chlorpyrifos were routinely detected at most of the facilities (46-96% of samples). Chlordane a nd alpha-BHC were only o ccasionally reported (13-25% of samples).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 136 Toxaphene was not detected at reporting limits ranging from 3.1 to 30 ng/L. The higher reporting limits for toxaphene were due to heavy interferences encountered in certain samples.

At the time these samples were collected, the pl ants were primarily processing apples, potatoes, or their products. Nectarines, peaches, and pears were being processed in a few instances. There was no obvious relationship between what was be ing processed and pesticide concentrations.

The percentage of effluent samples that exceeded water quality criteria is shown in Table 44 and Figure 62. The results are compared directly to criteria given the exceedances observed in the receiving waters.

Fruit packer and vegetable proce ssor effluent exceeded human hea lth water quality criteria for DDT compounds and dieldrin in 17% and 38% of the samples, respectively. Human health criteria for endosulfan, chlordane, an d alpha-BHC were never exceeded.

The chronic aquatic life criterion for total DDT was exceeded in 29% of the effluent samples. Other pesticides were consistently meeting chro nic criteria. Acute a quatic life criteria were never exceeded.

Table 44. Percent of Fruit Packer and Vegeta ble Processor Effluent Samples Exceeding Water Quality Criteria for 303(d) Li sted Pesticides during 2007-08. (N=24)

DDT DDE DDD Dieldrin Human Health Criteria (ng/L) 0.59 0.59 0.83 0.14 Percent of Samples Exceeding 17% 38% 13% 38% Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha BHC Human Health Criteria (ng/L) 930 NA 0.57 3.9 Percent of Samples Exceeding 0% - - 0% 0% Total DDT* Dieldrin Endosulfan Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria (ng/L) 1.0 1.9 220 Percent of Samples Exceeding 29% 0% 0% Chlorpyrifos Chlordane Alpha BHC Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria (ng/L) 41 4.3 NA Percent of Samples Exceeding 0% 0% 0% * DDT+DDE+DDD. NA = not applicable (human health criteria have not been adopted for chlorpyrifos).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 137 Figure 62. Percent of Fruit Packer and Vegetabl e Processor Effluent Sa mples Exceeding Human Health Criteria (DDT compounds and dieldrin) or Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria (total DDT) (quarterly samples, N=24).

Effluent flow rates for most of these facilities are less than 0.3 mgd. The combined flow from all six plants ranged from 0.6 – 1.5 mgd (0.9-2.3 cfs) during the four mon itoring periods. As a result, pesticide loading to surface water was rela tively low, as summarized in Table 45. One of the six facilities, Gilbert Orchards, discha rges to ground and was not included in the load calculation. A second, Andrus & Roberts, only discharges to surface water during the winter when the ground is frozen. As noted previously, the Prosser ConAgra plant is scheduled to close in May 2010.

Table 45. Summary of Pesticide Loads Measur ed in Combined Final Effluents from Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors that Di scharge to Surface Water in the Lower Yakima River Drainage during 2007-08 (half the detection lim it used for non-detects; Gilbert Orchards excluded).

T-DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos

Mean Load (mg/day, facilities combined) 1.1 1.3 9.0 5.2



### The TSS and turbidity data obtained on the effluents are summari zed in Table 46. 0.38 0.38

0.29

0.17

0.13

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%Percent of Samples

[WQ criteria not exceeded]

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 138 Table 46. Summary of Results from Monitoring TSS and Turbidity in Effluents from Six Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors in the Lower Yakima Basin during 2007-08 (quarterly samples).

Parameter N= Median Mean 90 th Percentile Maximum Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 24 7.5 26 63 242 Turbidity (NTU) 24 11 20 32 110



### The NPDES permits that apply to these facilities stipulate a ma ximum daily TSS discharge of 30 mg/L (General Permit for the Fresh Fruit Pa cking Industry) to 180 mg/L (Snokist Growers, Terrace Heights). The effluents were mee ting this requirement in most cases.

Two facilities exceeded TSS permit limits: Andr us & Roberts (242 and 86 mg/L on 7/26/07 and 10/10/07) and Gilbert Orchards (51 and 68 mg/L on 9/5/07 and 12/18/07). Visual observations recorded during sample collection indicated effluent turbidity was highly variable at these plants, ranging from cloudy to clear. A ndrus & Roberts was discharging to their sprayf ield; Gilbert Orchards was discharging to ground.

Where DDT compounds were detectable in fruit pr ocessor and vegetable packer effluents, there was a positive relationship between total DDT and TSS (R 2 

### = 0.54, Figure 63). This suggests that the levels of DDT compounds in these effl uents could be lowered by reducing TSS.

Figure 63. Correlation between Total DDT and To tal Suspended Solids in Fruit Packer and Vegetable Processor Effluents. y = 0.1779x 0.6449 R 2 = 0.54

0.01

0.1

1 10

1 10 100 1000Total DDT (ng/L)

TSS (mg/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 139 

## Urban Stormwater Runoff

Within the Yakima basin, stormwater discharges from the cities of Ellensburg, Selah, Yakima, Union Gap, Sunnyside, West Richland, and Rich land come under NPDES requirements of the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit for East ern Washington. Runoff samples were obtained during six rain storms in Yaki ma and Union Gap, and four storms in Ellensburg, during the winter of 2007-08. For each storm, between two to five storm drains were sampled in each of these two areas (see Figures 15 and 16). Twenty -three samples were analyzed overall, 13 from Yakima/Union Gap and 10 from Ellensburg. As previously noted, similar sampling was not attempted for the other Phase II cities due to infr equent rainfall. West Richland’s stormwater goes to the Columbia River.

The stormwater samples were either single grabs or composites of two grabs collected early in the storm once turbid water began to flow in the drains. The Yakima/Union Gap samples were analyzed for pesticides, PCBs, TSS, and turbidity. The same analyses were conducted for Ellensburg except pesticides were not analyzed due to the existing TMDL.

The average annual precipitation in Yakima and Ellensburg is 8 a nd 10 inches, respectively, with slightly more than half of it falling between November and February. Samples for the water quality study were collected betw een October and June when 90% of the precipitation occurs.

Precipitation in Yakima during the water quality study is show n in Figure 64, indicating which rain events were sampled. The amount of ra infall preceding sample co llection in Yakima is shown in Table 47.

Figure 64. Precipitation in Yakima during th e 2007-08 Water Quality Study, Showing When Stormwater Samples Were Collected (Yakima airport). (www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/ grayskies/nw_weather.html) 0.00000 0.05000 0.10000 0.15000 0.20000 0.25000 0.30000 0.35000 0.40000 0.45000 0.50000

4/1/07 5/1/07 6/1/07 7/1/07 8/1/07 9/1/07 10/1/07 11/1/07 12/1/07 1/1/08 2/1/08 3/1/08 4/1/08 5/1/08 6/1/08Precipitation (inches)

10/18 11/17 12/2

3/13 3/28 6/3

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 140 Table 47. Rainfall Prior To and During St ormwater Sampling in Yakima/Union Gap during 2007-08 (inches).

Sampling Date Rainfall During Previous 24 hours Rainfall During Previous Week Total Rainfall For Storm Event Sampled 10/18/2007 0.03 0.16 0.39 11/17/2007 0 0.02 0.25 12/2/2007 0 0.49 0.57 3/13/2008 0 0.010 0.10 3/28/2008 0 0 0.13 6/3/2008 0 0.01 0.27



### Concentrations

Results for 303(d) listed pest icides in Yakima/Union Gap stor mwater runoff are summarized in Table 48. Most of the results are qualifie d as estimates due to interferences.

Table 48. Summary of Results from Analyzing 303(d) Listed Pesticides and Toxaphene in Yakima/Union Gap Stormwater during 2007-08 (ng/L, parts per trillion).

DDT DDE DDD No. of Samples 13 13 13 Detection Frequency (%) 77% 92% 38% Median Concentration 9.9 J 13 J 2.5 U Mean Concentration 13 J 17 J 2.8 J 90th Percentile Concentration 28 J 45 J 3.6 J Maximum Concentration 33 J 54 J 4.1 J Dieldrin Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos No. of Samples 13 13 13 Detection Frequency (%) 38% 85% 62% Median Concentration 2.8 J 17 4.1 J Mean Concentration 3.7 J 32 33 J 90th Percentile Concentration 6.2 J 87 129 J Maximum Concentration 7.4 J 107 222 J Chlordane Alpha-BHC Toxaphene No. of Samples 13 13 13 Detection Frequency (%) 23% 0% 8% Median Concentration 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 25 UJ Mean Concentration 3.4 UJ 3 UJ 26 UJ 90th Percentile Concentration 3.5 J 3 UJ 27 UJ Maximum Concentration 13 J 3.6 UJ 30 J U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 141 DDT compounds, dieldrin, endosul fan, and chlorpyrifos were r outinely detected (38-92% of samples). Chlordane and toxaphene were infreque ntly detected. Alpha-BHC was not detected.

For detected compounds, the concentrations f ound were far above those recorded in water samples from other NPDES discharges or in surface water samples, by one-to-two orders of magnitude in most cases. Several additional pesticides or breakdown products were also detected in stormwater. These included endosul fan sulfate, aldrin, he ptachlor epoxide, and hexachlorobenzene (Appendix P).

Table 49 has a summary of the PCB data for Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg. PCBs were detected in all samples. The levels were genera lly similar between the two urban areas. As with pesticides, PCB concentrations were high compared to other types of samples collected for the water quality study. The pesticid e and PCB concentrations m easured in stormwater are compared to other sources later in this report.

Table 49. Summary of Results from Analyzi ng PCBs in Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg Stormwater during 2007-08 (ng/L, parts per trillion).

Total PCBs Yakima/Union Gap No. of Samples 12 Detection Frequency (%) 100% Median Concentration 9.9 J Mean Concentration 9.8 J 90th Percentile Concentration 19 J Maximum Concentration 28 J Ellensburg No. of Samples 10 Detection Frequency (%) 100% Median Concentration 2.1 J Mean Concentration 6.4 J 90th Percentile Concentration 13 J Maximum Concentration 33 J J = estimated.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 142 Figure 65 shows the percentage of Yakima/Union Gap stormwater samples that exceeded human health criteria for the primar y compounds of concern in this study. Because most of these chemicals bioaccumulate, even short-term discharg e during storms has the potential to contribute to fish consumption concerns. It should be not ed that many of these storm drains flow yearround, although at reduced rates.

Figure 65. Percent of Yakima/Union Gap St ormwater Samples Exceeding Human Health Criteria for 303(d) Listed Pes ticides and PCBs during 2007-08. (N=13)

Stormwater exceeded human health criteria for DDE and PCBs in almost all samples and for DDT, DDD, and dieldrin in sligh tly less than half the samples. The chlordane and toxaphene criteria were also occasionally exceeded. The exceedances were routin ely by one-to-two orders of magnitude.

Being short-term phenomena, stormwater discharg es are more appropriately compared to acute rather than chronic aquatic life criteria. The acute criteria apply to either an instantaneous or 1-hour average concentrations, while the chroni c criteria are for 24-hour or 4-day average concentrations. The stormwater samples did not exceed acute criteria for pesticides or PCBs. Chlorpyrifos was recorded at the acute criter ion of 220 ng/L in one instance (Appendix P).

Toxaphene was detected at a very high concentr ation in one of the Ya kima area storm drain samples (29 and 32 ng/L in replicate samples; A ppendix P). This concen tration substantially exceeds the human health criter ion (0.73 ng/L), but not the acut e aquatic life criterion (730 ng/L). The detection limit in the other stormwater samples (25-27 ng/L) was too high to assess compliance with water quality criteria. 92%

38% 38% 38%

23%

8% 0% 0% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 143 Several other pesticides or breakdown products also exceeded human health criteria in stormwater but not aquatic life cr iteria. These included heptachl or epoxide (5 of 13 samples), aldrin (1 of 13 samples), and hexachlorobenzene (1 of 13 samples). These data are also in Appendix P.

A summary of the TSS and turbidity data obtaine d on stormwater is provided in Table 50. As with other parameters, TSS and turbidity levels were high.

Table 50. Summary of Results from Analyzi ng TSS and Turbidity in Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg Stormwater during 2007-08.

TSS Turbidity (mg/L) (NTU) Yakima/Union Gap No. of Samples 15 15 Detection Frequency (%) 93% 100% Median Concentration 111 230 J Mean Concentration 225 223 J 90th Percentile Concentration 547 420 J Maximum Concentration 654 475 Ellensburg No. of Samples 13 13 Detection Frequency (%) 100% 100% Median Concentration 64 120 Mean Concentration 85 132 90th Percentile Concentration 151 230 Maximum Concentration 206 280 mg/L = parts per million. NTU = nephelometric turbidity units.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 144 Comparison with Other Data

Several other studies have analyzed pesticides and PCBs in stormwater samples from Eastern Washington cities, all in connecti on with TMDLs. As in the pres ent study, these efforts relied on simple grabs or composite samples from a few grab s. The data are summarized as median values in Table 51.

Table 51. Comparison of 303(d) Pesticide, PCB, and TSS Levels Measured in Urban Stormwater Samples in Eastern Washington (median values)

. City: Pullman Yakima/ Union Gap Ellensburg Spokane Sampling Period: 2005-06 2007-08 2007-08 2007 2005

Reference: Lubliner et al. (2006) present study present study Parsons (2007) Serdar et al. (2006) Number of Storms 3 6 4 3 1 Number of Drains 3 up to 5 up to 5 14 4 Number of Samples 9 12 10 37-39 4 Total DDT (ng/L) 3.0 23 na na na Dieldrin (ng/L) 0.53 2.8 na na na Endosulfan (ng/L) 0.74 17 na na na Chlorpyrifos (ng/L) na 4.1 na na na Chlordane (ng/L) 2.1 U 2.5 UJ na na na Alpha-BHC (ng/L) 0.20 2.5 UJ na na na Total PCBs (ng/L) 17 9.9 2.1 6.3 41 TSS (mg/L) 60 111 64 30 75 na = not analyzed. U = not detected. J = estimated.



### Pesticide data were only available for Pullman. That study found much lower concentrations of total DDT and endosulfan than present study resu lts for Yakima/Union Gap stormwater. Results for other 303(d) listed pesticides we re similar between these two areas.

PCBs have been analyzed in both Pullman and Spokane runoff. The PCB levels measured for Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg are at the lowe r end of the concentrations reported for these two cities.

Yakima/Union Gap stormwater samples had much higher TSS levels than Ellensburg, Pullman, or Spokane.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 145 Loads

The Simple Method (Schueler, 1987) was used to estimate the polluta nt loads carried by Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg stormwater. This unit area model estimates loads of chemical constituents as a product of annual runoff volume and pollutant concentration, according to the formula:
L = 0.226 * R * C * A Where: L = Annual load (lbs) R = Annual runoff (inches) C = Pollutant concentration (mg/L) A = Area (acres) 0.226 = Unit conversion factor

Annual runoff (R) is estimated as the product of rain fall, fraction of events that yield runoff, and a runoff coefficient: R = P * Pj * Rv Where: R = Annual runoff (inches) P = Annual rainfall (inches) Pj = Fraction of annual rainfall even ts that produce runoff (usually 0.9) Rv = Runoff coefficient Rv = 0.05+(0.91*Impervious Fraction)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 146 The values used for Yakima/Union Gap and Elle nsburg in the above equations are given in Table 52. Appendix Q has values for the same parameters for Sunnyside and for that portion of Richland that discharges stormw ater to the Yakima River.

Table 52. Values Used to Calculate Stormwater Loads from Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg.

Yakima/Union Gap Yakima City Limit (acres) 17,486 Union Gap City Limit (acres) 3,224 Selah City Limit (acres) 2,858 Moxee City Limit (acres) 1,020 All City Limit Areas (acres) 24,587 Annual Rainfall (inches) 8.0 Fraction of Runoff 0.90 Impervious Fraction 0.22 Runoff coefficient 0.25 Annual Runoff (inches) 1.79 Ellensburg City Limit (acres) 4,279 Annual Rainfall (inches) 10.0 Fraction of Runoff 0.90 Impervious Fraction 0.22 Runoff coefficient 0.25 Annual Runoff (inches) 1.79



### The urban areas shown above were the city limits, obtained through Phase I-II stormwater permit area maps www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/maps.html

. The area applied to the Yakima/Union Gap stormwater data included Union Gap, Selah, and Moxee.

Annual runoff was based on Figure 4.3.1 in the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (Ecology, 2004). The average annual precip itation is 10 inches in Ellensburg and 8 inches in Yakima (1961-1990 data).

In the absence of other information, the fraction of annual rainfall events that produce runoff (Pj) is usually assumed to be 0.9. This value has a strong effect on the resu lts and is a potential source of bias in the load estimates.

The equation for Rv is the best fit line for th e relationship between the storm runoff coefficient and watershed imperviousness (Schueler, 1987). An impervious fraction of 22% was used to calculate Rv. This value was taken from simila r stormwater studies that evaluated land use in the cities of Spokane (Rv=22%) and Pullman (Rv= 25%) (Serdar et al., 2006; Lubliner et al., 2006).

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 147 Results of the stormwater load calculations ar e summarized in Tables 53 and 54 for the primary contaminants of concern. Pollutant loads we re based on the median concentration among the samples collected. The median was used rather th an the mean due to variability in the data.

Table 53. Estimated Loading of 303(d) Listed Pe sticides and PCBs in Stormwater Runoff from Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg.

Location/ Pollutant Median Concentration (ng/L) Daily Load (grams/day)

Yakima/Union Gap DDT 9.9 J 0.12 DDD 2.5 U <0.03 DDE 13 J 0.16 Total DDT 23 J 0.28 Dieldrin 2.8 J 0.03 Chlorpyrifos 4.1 J 0.05 Endosulfan 17 J 0.21 Total PCBs 9.9 J 0.12 Ellensburg Total PCBs 2.1 J 0.01 U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated value



### Table 54. Estimated TSS Loading in Stormw ater from Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg.

Location Median Concentration (mg/L) Daily Load (tons/day) Annual Load (tons) Yakima/Union Gap 111 1.5 550 Ellensburg 64 0.19 69



### The advantage of using the Simple Method is that it requires a modest amount of information and is considered to provide reasonable estim ates of pollutant export from urban areas (www.stormwatercenter.net). It is important, however, not to over emphasize the precision of the results obtained. In addition, the Simple Method only estimates pollutant loads generated during storm events. It does not consider pollutants associated with baseflow volume.

The present study is one of the la rger efforts to char acterize toxics in st ormwater from urban areas in Washington. However, urban stormwater runoff is inherently vari able in both quality and quantity. Although a consistently elevat ed level of contamination was observed in Yakima/Union Gap and Ellensburg stormwater, it should be recognized that spatial and temporal variability in these discharg es is still poorly known.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 148 

## Point and Nonpoint Sources Compared

The results from analyzing 303(d) pesticides, PC Bs, TSS, and turbidity in the lower Yakima River basin during 2007-08 are compar ed as medians in Figure 66. Note that the concentrations are on a log scale (f actors of 10).

The following sources stand out in terms of concentrations :

 303(d) pesticides, PCBs, TSS, and turbidity were higher in Yakima /Union Gap stormwater runoff than in other sources, typically by an orde r of magnitude or more. Similar levels of PCBs, TSS, and turbidity were found in Ellensburg stormwater.

 Sources that ranked second behind stormwater included irrigation re turns (DDT compounds and TSS), fruit packer and vegetable proce ssor effluents (dieldri n, chlorpyrifos, and endosulfan), and WWTP effluents (PCBs).

 Comparable data were not obtai ned on toxaphene. Results point to at least some irrigation returns as having elevated concentrations. A high toxaphene concentration was recorded in one instance in a Yakima area stormwater sa mple. Reporting limits were not low enough to rule out the presence of si gnificant concentrations in ot her stormwater samples.

The impacts of these sources on the Yakima Rive r are a function of pollu tant concentration and flow (loads), as well as diluti on at the point of discharge. The amount of available dilution varies with location and season. However, a gene ral sense of the relative importance of sources can be gained by a simple comparison of loads.

The load estimates for point and nonpoint sources, calculated earlier in this report, are compared in Figure 67. The loads in the lower Yakima River at Kiona and Horn Rapids provide a point of reference.

Reporting limits were high for most pesticides in WWTP effluent and fo r toxaphene in NPDES discharges in general. To a void the perception that concentra tions were zero, half the reporting limit was used to calculate a load for these ch emicals in Figure 67. The true loads are unknown.

In all cases, the largest loads are from the irrigation returns and tributaries, followed by stormwater. When averaged over the entire ye ar, the stormwater load s are only about 1/10 of those calculated for the returns. While the other sources evalua ted in this study are continuous discharges, stormwater is released in a series of relatively brief, concentrated pulses. For this reason, stormwater has a greater potential for adverse water qua lity impacts than the load estimates might suggest. Pollutant concentrations in the storm drains during baseflow conditions are unknown.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 149 Figure 66. Median Concentrations of Selected Pollutants in th e Lower Yakima River Drainage during 2007-08 (log scale). 0.01

0.1

1 10 100

Total DDT Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos Endosulfanng/L(partspertrillion) 

### Selected 303(d) Pesticides

Mainstem & Naches R. Major Returns Screening Survey Tribs.

Fruit & Vegetable

Stormwater

0.01

0.1

1 10

Mainstem & Naches R. Major Returns Screening Survey Tribs. WWTPs Fruit & Vegetable Stormwaterng/L(partspertrillion) 

### Total PCBs

NA NA

0 50 100 150 200 250

1 10 100 1000Turbidity(NTU)TSS(mg/L)
TSS Turbidity

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 150 Figure 67. Loading Comparison for Sele cted Pollutants Analyzed in 2007-08 (unfilled bars are estimated loads based on half the reporting limit). <0.10 0.001

~0.10 0.28 0.80 2.1 2.1 3.6

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 WWTP Fruit & Vegetable Upper Yakima (@ Harrison) Yakima Stormwater Naches River Other Tribs & Returns Major Returns Yakima @ Kiona 

# Total DDT (grams per day)

sum=5.5

<0.10 0.001

0.03 ~0.10 ~0.20 0.30 0.36 0.60

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 WWTP Fruit & Vegetable Yakima Stormwater Naches River Upper Yakima (@ Harrison) Other Tribs & Returns Major Returns Yakima @ Kiona 

# Dieldrin (grams per day)

sum=1.1

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 151 Figure 67. Loading Comp arison (continued). 0.23 0.005 0.41 ~0.90 ~4.0

4.8 8.7 36

0 10 20 30 40 WWTP Fruit & Vegetable Yakima Stormwater Upper Yakima (@ Harrison) Naches River Major Returns Other Tribs & Returns Yakima @ Kiona 

# Chlorpyrifos (grams per day)

sum=19

NA NA 0.01

0.06 0.07

0.12 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.9

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Other Tribs & Returns Fruit & Vegetable Ellensburg Stormwater Wilson Creek WWTP Yakima Stormwater Upper Yakima (@ Roza) Major Returns

Naches River Yakima @ Horn Rapids

grams per day 

# Total PCBs (grams per day)

sum=2.7

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 152 Figure 67. Load Compar ison (continued).

Comparing the summed loads in Figure 67 with the downstream loads in the Yakima River at Kiona and Horn Rapids provides a means of gauging how well the water quality study accounted for pollutant loads to the Yakima River.

It was impractical to obtain synopt ic data on all these discharges. It is therefore not surprising that the estimates of the incomi ng and outgoing loads are not always in close correspondence. Overall however, the water quality study does appear to have accounted for the major sources of total DDT, dieldrin, PCBs, toxaphene, and TSS.

The study accounted for only about half of the ch lorpyrifos loading to the river. This can probably be attributed to the difficulty of defining the short-te rm spikes in concentrations that occur during application periods. <0.001 <0.6 <0.8 <4.9 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.1 5.0

0123456 Fruit & Vegetable Yakima Stormwater WWTP Other Tribs & Returns Wilson Creek Naches River Upper Yakima (@ Roza) Major Returns Yakima @ Horn Rapids 

# Toxaphene (grams per day)

sum=5.1

sum=11

0.01 0.19 0.80 1.5 48 53

58

66 236

0 50 100 150 200 250 Fruit & Vegetable Ellensburg Stormwater WWTP Yakima Stormwater Other Tribs & Returns Major Returns Upper Yakima (@ Harrison) Naches River Yakima @ Kiona 

# TSS (tons per day)

sum=228

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 153 Table 55 shows the relative importance of the poi nt and nonpoint sources assessed in the water quality study, in terms of percen t of the summed load (from Figur e 67). Chlordane was detected too infrequently to compare source loadings.

Table 55. Relative Importance of Point a nd Nonpoint Loads to Lower Yakima River (based on loads shown in Figure 67).

Source Total DDT Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos Total PCBs Toxaphene TSS (g/day) (g/day) (g/day) (g/day) (g/day) (tons/day) Total Point/ Nonpoint Load 5.5 1.1 19 2.7 5.1 - 11 228

Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers ~17% ~30% 26% 73% 20-45% 54%

Tributaries and Returns 78% 66% 71% 20%* 55-67% 44%

Yakima Area Stormwater 5% 3% 2% 5% <5% - <12% 1% Ellensburg Stormwater NA NA NA <1% NA <1%

WWTPs <2% <9% 1% 3% † <7% - <16% <1% Fruit & Vegetable <1% <1% <1% NA NA <1%

NA = not analyzed. *Wilson Creek, Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, Su lphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek only. †i ncludes Ellensburg, Cle Elum, and Kittitas WWTPs.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 154 

# Status of 303(d) Listed Chemicals and Toxaphene in the Yakima River

The water quality status of the Yakima River basin with respect to 303(d) listed chemicals and toxaphene is summarized in Tabl es 56 (reservoirs and mainstem) and 57 (tributaries and returns), based on results from Ecology’s 2007-08 water qu ality study and 2006 fish tissue survey. The determination as to whether a particular wate rbody segment did or did not exceed criteria generally follows Ecology’s sample size re quirements for 303(d) listing (Ecology, 2006):

Water column data: A segment will be placed in Category 5 (i.e., the 303(d) list) due to a toxic pollutant in the water column when two or more samples within a three-year period exceed the applicable criteria.

Tissue data: A segment will be placed in Category 5 if either the mean of three single-fish samples with the highest concentration of a give n pollutant or one composite sample made up of at least five fish exceed the applicable criteria.

In some instances, PCBs and toxaphene are highli ghted as exceeding water quality criteria based on results from one or two SPMD passive samples (f rom the data in Table 30). It should be noted that Ecology policy does not address using SPM D data for 303(d) listing purposes. Also, a single sample does not strict ly meet the two-sample-per-s egment minimum for listing under Category 5. However, as previously discussed, chemical concentrations derived from SPMDs are comparable to other types of low-level wa ter samples. And, because SPMDs measure the long-term average concentration of a chemical, the results should be consider ed to carry at least as much weight as two separate grab samples.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 155 Table 56. Summary of Water Quality Exceedan ces in Yakima River Storage Reservoirs, Mainstem Yakima River and Naches River for 303(d) Listed Chemical s and Toxaphene during Ecology’s 2006-08 Fish Tissue and Water Quality Studies. (  = Criteria were exceeded in at least one composite edible fish tissue sample, two whole water samples, or one SPMD passive sample at one or more sampling sites per waterbody. 

= Criteria were not exceeded.)

Waterbody/

Chemical Human Health Criterion Chronic Aquatic Life

Criterion Acute Aquatic Life

Criterion

Fish Tissue Water Column Water Column Keechelus Lake (WRIA 39) PCBs 

###  NA NA NA Kachess Lake (WRIA 39) PCBs 

###  NA NA NA Upper Mainstem (WRIA 39) PCBs 

###    

Dioxin 

###  NA NA/** NA/** Naches River (WRIA 38) 

###    PCBs NA Lower Mainstem (WRIA 37)

DDT 

###    

DDE 

###   **  **

DDD 

###     Total DDT **  ** 

###  

Dieldrin 

###     Chlorpyrifos   

###  

Chlordane 

###    

PCBs 

###     Toxaphene 

###    

Dioxin 

###  NA NA/**  NA/** NA = not analyzed. ** Human health criteria have not been established for total DDT or chlorpyrifos; aq uatic life criteria for DDT compounds apply to total DDT only; aquatic life criteria have not been established for dioxin.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 156 Table 57. Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in Tributaries and Irri gation Returns of the Yakima and Naches Rivers for 303(d) Listed Chemicals and Toxaphene. (  = Criteria were exceeded in at least two whole water samples or one SPMD passive sampler during Ecology’s 2007-08 water quality studies.  = Criteria were not exceeded. Endosulfan, chlordane, and alpha BHC did not exceed (not show n in table). Dioxin was not analyzed in water samples. Fish samples were not analyzed from th ese waterbodies.)

Waterbody/ WRIA Tributary/ Irrigation

Return Human Health Criteria Aquatic Life Criteria
Chronic AcuteDDTDDEDDDDieldrinPCBsToxapheneTotal DDTChlorpyrifosToxapheneChlorpyrifos

Upper Yakima/39 Wilson Creek - - - - - - - - 

###   - - - -  - -

Naches/38 Cowiche Creek 

###   

###   NA† 

###  *  

###   * 

Lower Yakima/37 Sulphur Cr. WW 

###   

###         Granger Drain   

###      

###   

### 

Moxee Drain 

###   

###   

###    

###   

###  Spring Creek   

###   

###       Grandview Drain   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

Satus Drain #302   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

Drain #31 

###   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

Wide Hollow Cr. 

###   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   *  E. Toppenish Dr. 

###   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

Satus Drain #303 

###   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

Selah Ditch 

###   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

Zillah Drain 

###   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

South Drain   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

Subdrain 35 

###   

###   NA 

###  *  

###   * 

DID #7 

###   

###   NA 

###  *    * 

Marion Drain 

###     NA 

###  *   

###  *  - - = to be reported separately (TMDL Effectiveness Monitoring). NA = not analyzed. * = high reporting limits. †Currently 303(d) listed based on historical fish tissue data.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 157 

# Pollutants for which a TMDL or

Other Control Plan is Needed

The Clean Water Act requires that a TMDL or other pollution contro l plan be developed for each 303(d) listed pollutant in a waterbody. Findi ngs from Ecology’s 2006- 08 studies show 303(d) listings are appropriate for the locations and pollutants shown in Table 58, either due to previously listed chemicals continuing to exceed criteria or new findings. The toxaphene TMDL recommendation for the Lower Yakima River and the PCB recommendation for the Naches River (except for the Cowiche Creek fish tissue listing, Appendix A) are based on SPMD passive samplers, and thus do not strictly m eet listing requirements for 303(d).

Table 58. Yakima Basin WRIAs Where a TMDL or Other Polluti on Control Plan is Needed.

Keechelus Lake

Kachess Lake

(WRIA 39) Upper Yakima River

(WRIA 39) Lower Yakima River

(WRIA 37) Naches River (WRIA 38)

PCBs hh PCBs hh Toxaphene aq* (Wilson Creek) Dioxin hh PCBs hh Toxaphene hh,aq*

DDE hh Total DDT aq Chlordane hh

Dieldrin hh Chlorpyrifos aq (returns/tributaries) Dioxin hh PCBs hh

DDE hh (Cowiche Creek)

Total DDT aq* (Cowiche Creek)

Number of 2008 303(d) Listings Addressed

1 2 78 2 hh = human health criteria at issue. aq = aquatic life criteria at issue. *not currently listed.



### Previously unlisted impairments identified within these WRIAs are itemized below in Table 59.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 158 Table 59. Potential Unlisted Waterbody Impairments in the Yakima River Drainage

WRIA Water Body Name Parameter Medium

37 Lower Yakima DID 7 DDE Water

Drain #31 DDE Water Dieldrin Water T-DDT Water

East Toppenish Drain DDE Water Dieldrin Water T-DDT Water

Grandview Drain DDE Water T-DDT Water Dieldrin Water Granger Drain PCBs Water* Toxaphene Water* Moxee Drain Toxaphene Water*

Satus Drain #302 DDE Water T-DDT Water Dieldrin Water

Satus Drain #303 DDE Water T-DDT Water Dieldrin Water

South Drain DDE Water T-DDT Water Spring Creek Dieldrin Water Toxaphene Water*

Sub Drain #35 DDE Water T-DDT Water Sulphur Creek Wasteway PCBs Water* Toxaphene Water* Yakima River @ Sunnyside Dam Toxaphene Water*

Yakima River nr. Prosser Toxaphene Water* & Fish Tissue Yakima River nr. Horn Rapids Toxaphene Water* & Fish Tissue

Zillah Drain DDE Water T-DDT Water 38 Naches Naches River PCBs Water* Cowiche Creek T-DDT Water

39 Upper Yakima Kachess Lake PCBs Water

Selah Ditch DDE Fish Tissue T-DDT Water Wilson Creek Toxaphene Water* *based on SPMD samples.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 159 

# PCBs, Dioxin, Chlorpyrifos, and Chlordane

Some additional discussion on the occurrence an d significance of PCBs, dioxin, chlorpyrifos, and chlordane in the Yakima River follows:



## PCBs

Currently, there are 92 individual 303(d) listings in Washington State for PCBs exceeding human health criteria in surface waters . Many of these listings are from lakes and rivers with no obvious local sources of these compounds, Keechelus Lake and Kachess Lake being examples in the Yakima basi n. 

### The PCB analyses in the present water quality st udy are an integral part of Ecology’ plans to address 303(d) water quality concerns in the Yakima River. The PCB assessment identified several opportunities to approach water quality improvement s through a direct implementation approach for a contaminant that may not be a ddressed effectively thr ough a traditional TMDL track. The assessment provides opportunities for direct implementation while working through statewide issues associated with the widespread presence of PCBs in Washington’s waterways. Additionally, an updated and thor ough assessment of PCBs provides a current benchmark for long-term assessment of implementation actions, ev en for those not directly targeted at PCB levels, such as efforts to reduce TSS le vels in runoff to the Yakima River.

Sulphur Creek Wasteway, Granger Drain, and Yakima area stormwater are examples of elevated PCB contamination where potential sources should be considered and opportunities for targeted cleanups may exist (e.g., transformer storage yards, natural gas drilling, ol d landfills, or illegal dumpsites existing in the area).



## Dioxin

In view of the low dioxin concentrations in Ya kima River fish and due to budget constraints, dioxin was not analyzed in the 2007-08 water quality study. Although only a few fish samples from the 2006 survey exceeded human health criter ia, 303(d) policy requires listing in instances where even a single composite sample is above criteria. ( www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ 303d/wqp01-11-ch1Final2006.pdf ).

Dioxin is an unintentional byproduct of combustion a nd certain industrial processes. It has been the subject of source controls locally and natio nally, including a TMDL for the Columbia River basin (EPA, 1991a). Dioxin levels are expected to decrease in the Yakima River in the future.

Dioxin will remain on the 303(d) list of contamin ants to be addressed in the Yakima basin. Additional water quality work on Yakima River di oxins will be prioritized along with other water quality concerns in the Central Regi on through Ecology’s annual watershed scoping process. Ecology is currently evaluating low-level di oxin contamination through a statewide

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 160 study on the dioxin and PCB background in fish fr om Washington rivers and lakes (Johnson et al., 2010). Findings from this study are likely to have implicati ons for addressing 303(d) listings for dioxins and PCBs in the Yakima River.

Ecology plans to address dioxins on a larger scale (possibly region- or state-wide) in the future. Additionally, because dioxins are often carried via air and can pollute sizeable areas not necessarily limited to watersheds, a larger TMDL footprint will likely be more effective and efficient. 

## Chlorpyrifos

Unlike legacy pesticides, chlorpyrifos is a wate r quality concern in the Yakima drainage only during the growing season, in and around the time s it is applied. Chlorpyrifos and other organophosphorus insecticides have faster break down rates, lower affinity for sorption and bioaccumulation, and greater solubility. Aquatic life criteria are the primary concern with chlorpyrifos, rather than human health concerns pr ominently associated with legacy pollutants.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungici de, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA ) governs the sale and use of chlorpyrifos by directing EPA to regulate pesticid es through a registration process. A pesticide may not be sold or used in the U.S. unless it is registered by EPA a nd has an approved label authorizing a given use. Add itionally, FIFRA requires product la bels to specify where and how pesticide products may be used and applied. EP A must periodically review the registration to ensure compliance with FIFRA and other federa l laws. The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has legal authority to impose any of these restrictions.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ ration (NOAA, 2008) recen tly issued findings that chlorpyrifos jeopardizes the survival of P acific salmon listed as threatened or endangered in the West. A recent decision in a lawsuit br ought by environmental and commercial fishing groups expanded buffers to 1,000 feet from st reams for aerial spraying, 500 feet for ground spraying, plus a 20-foot strip of grass or brush. Chlorpyrifos ca nnot be sprayed when the wind is blowing or when a major storm mi ght wash it into rivers and str eams. The old buffers were 300 feet for aerial spraying and 60 feet for groun d spraying, with no vegeta tion strip required.

EPA has one year to implement these findings. When put into effect, the new requirements will be considered an implementation activity for chlorpyrifos under the TMDL statute. Inclusion of chlorpyrifos in the TMDL will provide assurance that that they will be implemented and their effectiveness monitored.

Chlorpyrifos should remain part of this TMDL. Actions by other Federal and State agencies may create the implementation require ments to bring about water quali ty compliance, but could be aimed at some other regulatory criteria. Inclusio n in the TMDL provides the ability to track the implementation of the developing rules and the a pplication and compliance with those rules to determine if they succeed in achieving and assuri ng compliance with water quality standards.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 161 Ecology has an ongoing monitoring program for curre nt-use pesticides in the lower Yakima basin that includes ch lorpyrifos (the previously mentioned Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in Salmonid-Bearing Streams www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/t oxics/pesticides.htm ). WSDA and Ecology are engaging growers in the watershed for help in determinin g less toxic and less mobile pesticides through a series of presentations. App lication methods, integrated pest management, and meteorological planning are included to help pr event off-site transport.



## Chlordane

Ecology’s 2006 fish tissue study showed human hea lth criteria exceedances for chlordane were limited to carp analyzed in the vicinity of Pro sser and that the exceedances were marginal. This is the same general location for the existing 303 (d) listing on edible fish tissue (whitefish samples from 1998, reported in EPA (2002a)).

Extensive water sampling in 2007-08 failed to iden tify a single instance of chlordane exceeding either human health or aquatic life criteria in the Yakima mainstem, tributaries, or irrigation returns. One of the Yakima/Union Gap stormwater samples did however substantially exceed human health criteria for chlordane.

The evidence suggests chlordane has been reduced to low levels in the Yakima system and is now an insignificant concern for human health and aquatic life in almost all areas.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 162 

# Pollutants Not Exceeding Standards

If it is determined that water quality standards are bei ng met for a particular pollutant throughout the year, taking into account season al variations and critical condi tions, and are not expected to be exceeded by the next 303(d) listing cycle, then a TMDL is not required. The Yakima River was listed for alpha-BHC, endosulfan, chlordane, and dioxin based on older data. The 2006-08 studies show that alpha-BHC a nd endosulfan are now meeting wate r quality criteria. Chlordane is meeting criteria in all but one area. Dioxi n is now meeting criteria in Keechelus Lake.

Chlordane and alpha-BHC are no longer used, ha ving been banned by EPA in the 1970s and 80s. Extensive monitoring of endosulfan in the lower Yakima River drainage has failed to detect a single recent violation of water quality criteria. The use of e ndosulfan is governed by FIFRA, EPA, and the WSDA. Chlordane, alpha-BHC, and endosulfan levels are not expected to exceed standards in the Yakima River in the future . A similar conclusion applies to dioxin, as previously discussed. For these reasons, TMDLs are no longer required for these chemicals for the WRIAs shown in Table 60.

Table 60. Locations and Pollutants Wh ere a TMDL is No Longer Required.

Keechelus Lake (WRIA 39 Upper Yakima River

(WRIA 39) Lower Yakima River

(WRIA 37)

Dioxin Chlordane Endosulfan Alpha-BHC Number of 2008 303(d) Listings Removed

1 1 8

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 163 

# Numeric TMDL Targets

Numeric water quality targets must be identified in a TMDL. The targets identify the specific instream goals or criteria for the TMDL, which equa te to attainment of wa ter quality standards. In most cases targets are set equal to the water quality criteria. 

## Pesticide and PCB Targets

Applicable water quality criteria for all 303(d ) listed chemicals in the Yakima basin were previously listed in Table 3. Compliance with a subs et of these criteria has been identified as a major water quality issue. These criteria provide numeric targets for the Pesticides and PCBs TMDL (Table 61).

Table 61. Numeric TMDL Targets (Water Quality Criteria) for Pesticides and PCBs That Currently Exceed Standards in the Yakima Ri ver, Tributaries, or Irrigation Returns (ng/L = parts per trillion).

Pollutant Numeric Target (ng/L) Protective of:

DDT 0.59 Human health for the average fish consumer

DDE 0.59 Human health for the average fish consumer

DDD 0.83 Human health for the average fish consumer Total DDT 1.0 Aquatic life for chronic exposure

Dieldrin 0.14 Human health for the average fish consumer

Chlordane 0.57 Human health fo r the average fish consumer

Chlorpyrifos 41 Aquatic life for chronic exposure 83 Aquatic life for acute exposure Total PCBs 0.17 Human health for the average fish consumer

Toxaphene 0.20 Aquatic life for chronic exposure 0.73 Human health for the average fish consumer



## Suspended Sediment and Turbidity Targets

Numeric targets for turbidity and TSS have b een set by the existing Ya kima River suspended sediment and pesticide TMDLs (Table 62).

The 7 mg/L TSS target for the lower Yakima Ri ver was intended to meet the 1 ng/L chronic aquatic life criterion for total DDT. Seven mg/L was derived by correlating total DDT concentrations with the corres ponding TSS concentrations, usi ng data collected during the

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 164 irrigation season from 1988-1995. Recognizing th at the relationship between DDT and TSS was likely to change as soil erosion was brought under c ontrol, the TMDL stipulat ed the target should be re-evaluated in 2007. A TSS target of 7 mg/L equates to less than 4 NTU, which is below background for the lower Yakima River.

Table 62. Existing TMDL Targets for Turbidit y and Total Suspended Solids in the Yakima River.

Pollutant Numeric Target Applies To: Intent Upper Yakima River

Turbidity < 10 NTU over background Mainstem and selected tributaries (2006 target) Compliance with state turbidity standards <5 NTU over background Mainstem and selected tributaries (2011 target)

Lower Yakima River

Turbidity <5 NTU over background Mainstem (2002 target; extended to 2003) Compliance with state turbidity standards

25 NTU (90th percentile) All points within all tributaries and drains (2007 target) Protect fish and other aquatic organisms; assist with turbidity compliance in mainstem

Total Suspended Solids 7 mg/L (1 ng/L total DDT) Mainstem, tributaries, and drains (2012 target;

re-evaluate in 2007) Achieve total DDT chronic aquatic life criterion



### A USGS study in 1999-2000 found the amount of tota l DDT associated with suspended sediment had indeed decreased in the lower Yakima Rive r compared to the pre-TMDL period (Fuhrer et al., 2004). Fuhrer suggests several possible reasons for the decline: (1) degradation of total DDT in soils and bed sediments; (2) dilution of suspended sediment with uncontaminated eroded soils; or (3) use of PAM (polyacrylamide) in the fl occulation and sedimenta tion of fine-grained, organically enriched soil partic les that tend to sorb total DDT. The report concluded that “... the total DDT criterion could be met when con centrations of suspended sediment are well above 7 mg/L”.

The total DDT:TSS correlation observed in 1988-1995 is shown in Figure 68 and compared to similar data from the 2007 irrigation season. Th e original correlation was based on pooled data for the mainstem, tributaries, and irrigation return s (N= 71). The same or similar locations were used to assess the correla tion for 2007 (N= 95). As shown in this figure, total DDT and TSS con centrations had shifted downward by an order of magnitude in 2007 compared to 1988-1995. Total DDT had commonly been seen in the range of 10-100 ng/L, but now rarely exceeds 5 ng/L. Whereas TSS once approached 1,000 mg/L, current levels are below 200 mg/L. Total DDT and suspended sediment concentrations have obviously decreased to a substantial extent.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 165 Figure 68. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in the Lower Yakima River Drainage: 1988-1995 vs. 2007 Irrigation Seasons.

The R 2 

### values in these relationships indicate the percent of the DDT data that is explained by TSS (coefficient of determination). The correla tion was not as strong in 2007 because the data now cover a much narrower range of concentrations , with many of the results being close to the detection limit and thus more scatter in the data.

A stronger correlation (R 2 

### = 0.50) results when the 2007 and 2008 data are pooled (Figure 69, N= 144). The mainstem data for the December 2007 storm were excluded here because the TSS concentrations were extreme outliers that had an undue influence on the correlation. Yakima at Harrison Bridge data were not used becau se DDT compounds were never detected.

Solving this regression equation for 1 ng/L total DDT gives 32 mg /L TSS, a value four times higher than the original 7 mg/L ta rget. While there is more uncertainty associated with this new value, the 2007-08 data repres ent an improvement over what was available in 1988-95 with respect to sample size and equitable distribution across the study area.

Based on the TSS and turbidity data collected in 2007-08, 32 mg/L equates to 13 NTU (Figure 70). The existing TMDL target for meeting the state turbidity criteria in the lower Yakima mainstem is background + 5 NTU. Background is t ypically at or below 10 NTU (see Table 36). Thus, the target would normally be 15 NTU or le ss. Therefore, the existing TMDL turbidity target of background + 5 NTU should be effective for the mainstem in both meeting a total DDTbased TSS target of 32 mg/L and in achieving compliance with the turbidity criteria. y = 0.1513x 0.953 R2 = 0.75

y = 0.0598x 0.7868 R2 = 0.43

0.01

0.1

1 10 100 1000

1 10 100 1000TotalDDT(ng/L)

TSS (mg/L) 1988

‐ 1995

2007

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 166 Figure 69. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in the Lo wer Yakima River Drai nage, April 2007-March 2008.

Figure 70. Relationship between Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids in the Lower Yakima River Drainage during 2007-08 (pooled results from monthl y monitoring of the Yakima mainstem, Naches River, and the four major irrigation returns, N = 167). y = 0.0617x 0.7997 R2 = 0.50

0.01

0.1

1 10 100

0.1 1 10 100 100 0Total DDT (ng/L)

TSS (mg/L)

y = 0.8375x 0.7933 R2 = 0.89

0.1

1 10 100 1000

1 10 100 1000Turbidity (NTU)

TSS (mg/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 167 A 32 mg/L target would be under-protective for irrigation returns since these sometimes exceed the total DDT criterion at lower TSS levels. There was a good correlation between total DDT and TSS in Moxee Drain (R 2 

### =0.76) and in Spring Creek (R 2 

### = 0.59) during 2007-08 (Figure 71). The data indicate that TSS concentrations of 29 and 19 mg/L, respectively, correspond to the 1 ng/L total DDT criterion. These concentrations equate to turbidities of 11 and 8 NTU, respectively. Thus, a turbidity ta rget of 10 NTU appears to be appropriate for these discharges.

Figure 71. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in Mox ee Drain and Spring Creek during April 2007- March 2008. y = 0.1406x 0.5815 R2 = 0.76

0.01

0.1

1 10

1 10 100 1000Total DDT (ng/L)

TSS (mg/L) 

### Moxee Drain

Aquatic Life Criterion

y = 0.2959x 0.4135 R2 = 0.59

0.1

1 10

0.1 1 10 100 1000Total DDT (ng/L)

TSS (mg/L) 

### Spring Creek

Aquatic Life Criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 168 Total DDT also increased with TSS in Sulphur Creek Wasteway, although concentrations varied widely at higher TSS levels, reducing the st rength of the correlati on (Figure 72). Under conditions of 10 NTU (~25 mg/L TS S) total DDT concentrations were always less than 2 ng/L. Therefore, a 10 NTU target for Sulphur Creek al so looks reasonable at the present time.

Figure 72. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in Sulp hur Creek Wasteway during April 2007-March 2008.

Granger Drain consistently exceeded the 1 ng/L crit erion by factors of 2 to 4 or more, and there was no clear relationship between total DDT a nd TSS (Figure 73). The absence of even a modest correlation suggests that source areas w ithin the drainage have substantially different total DDT:TSS signatures and that these areas are active at different times of the year.

It is uncertain what reductions in TSS would be required to meet the total DDT criterion in Granger Drain. Turbidity exceeded 10 NTU most of the time during 2007-08 (74% of samples). Therefore, a 10 NTU target for Granger Drain would be a useful interim goal for improving water quality and bringing this discharge closer into compliance with the total DDT criterion.

The DDE human health criterion is 40% lower than the total DDT aquatic life criterion (0.59 vs. 1.0 ng/L). There was a consistent relationship between DDE and total DDT across the study area (Figure 74). This correlation indicates that when the total DDT concentration is 1 ng/L, DDE should be in the neighborhood of 0.7 ng/L. In ot her words, when the aq uatic life criterion is being achieved (< 1 ng/L), the human health criterion should be achieved or close to being achieved as well (< 0.7 ng/L vs. 0.59 ng/L). Therefore the tu rbidity targets proposed here should be adequate to gauge progress toward meeting bot h criteria. A similar conclusion applies to the human health criterion specific to DDT since it is the same as the DDE criterion and ambient concentrations of DDT are lower than DDE. y = 0.8138x 0.237 R2 = 0.34

1 10

1 10 100Total DDT (ng/L)

TSS (mg/L) 

### Sulphur Creek

Aquatic Life Criterion

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 169 Figure 73. Total DDT:TSS Correlation in Gr anger Drain during April 2007-March 2008.

Figure 74. Relationship Between DDE and Total DDT in the Yakima River, Tributaries, and Irrigation Returns during 2007-08 [excluded data: Yakima River at Harrison Bridge and high DDT outliers for Granger Drain (1/10/08) and Spring Creek (4/5/07)]. y = 1.9772x 0.1492 R2 = 0.04

1 10 100

1 10 100 1000Total DDT (ng/L)

TSS (mg/L) 

### Granger Drain

Aquatic Life Criterion

y = 0.7354x + 0.0191 R2 = 0.98

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

0123456DDE (ng/L)

Total DDT (ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 170 Not enough samples were collected from other lo wer Yakima River tributaries and irrigation returns to have confidence in determining appropriate turbidity targets to meet water quality criteria for DDT compounds. The amount of to tal DDT associated with suspended matter is relatively high in some of thes e discharges. Figure 75 shows how total DDT compares to a turbidity target of 10 NTU at th e 12 screening survey sites where the 1 ng/L was exceeded on at least one occasion. Approximately 30% of the samples exceeded 1 ng/L at 10 NTU or less. Under current conditions, turbidit ies less than 5 NTU might be re quired to meet the criterion. For sake of consistency, an interim TMDL targ et of 10 NTU is proposed for irrigation returns basin-wide, recognizing that th e total DDT:TSS ratio will decrease over time as erosion is brought under further control.

Figure 75. Total DDT vs. Turbidity in Selected Tributaries and Irrigation Returns from the 2007-08 Screening Survey, Highlighting Low Turbidity Samples that Exceeded the 1 ng/L Total DDT Criterion.

Based on the preceding analysis, a revised set of TMDL targets is proposed for turbidity in the lower Yakima River (Table 63). They include a significant easing of restrictions put in place by the previous TMDL.

In keeping with the previous TMDL, the turbidity targets for tributaries and irrigation returns would be applied to the 90 th 

### percentile. In this way, only 10% of the turbidities should exceed the target, and the average turb idity should be below the target . Compliance could be assessed separately for the irrigation season and non-irrigation season. 0.1

1 10

0.1 1 10 100Total DDT (ng/L)

Turbidity (NTU) Other Tributaries and Returns

> 1 ng/L @ <10 NTU

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 171 Table 63. Revised TMDL Targets Proposed for Turbidity in the Lower Yakima River.
Existing Target Revised Target Applies To: Intent

< 5 NTU over background (no change) Mainstem Compliance with state turbidity standards

25 NTU (90th percentile) All points within all tributaries

and drains Protect fish and other aquatic organisms; assist with turbidity compliance in mainstem

7 mg/L TSS

(~4 NTU) Increase to

< 5 NTU over background Mainstem Compliance with total DDT chronic aquatic life criterion and DDT/DDE human health criteria Increase to

10 NTU (90th percentile) Mouths of all tributaries

and drains



### Similar targets could not be derived or are not ap propriate for the other 303(d) listed chemicals or for toxaphene. Except for Spring Creek (R 2 

### = 0.58), dieldrin was weakly correlated or inversely correlated with TSS and appears to occu r primarily in dissolved form. The previous TMDL concluded that establishing TSS or turbidit y goals for dieldrin wo uld not be suitable (Joy and Patterson, 1997).

Endosulfan and chlorpyrifos concentrations are a function of how and when they are used. The levels encountered in surface water are unrelated to TSS.

The PCB and toxaphene data obtained on surface water were limited to measuring long-term average concentrations which canno t be correlated with TSS. P CBs, however, have an affinity for suspended matter that is equal to or gr eater than DDT compounds. Thus, achieving the turbidity targets could also be an e ffective control measure for PCBs.

Toxaphene does not sorb as strongly to suspende d matter. The toxaphene problem in the lower Yakima River drainage could be the result of localized contamin ation rather than wide-spread soil contamination as with DDT and dieldrin. Thus, source investig ation is indicated as a first step toward reducing toxaphene levels.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 172 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 173 

# Loading Capacity

Determining a waterbody’s loading capacity for a pollutant is the basis for developing a TMDL. Loading capacity is the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be delivered to a waterbody and still achieve water quality standards.

The portion of a receiving water’s loading capacit y assigned to a particular source is a load (nonpoint sources) or wasteload (point sources) a llocation. By definition, a TMDL is the sum of the allocations, which must not exceed the lo ading capacity. Load a nd wasteload allocations for the chemicals of concern in this TMDL w ill be addressed in a separate Water Quality Improvement Report to EPA, to be prepared by the Ecology Water Quality Program at a later date.

Loading capacity can be calculated by multiplyin g streamflow by the pollutant’s water quality criterion. For carcinogens, EPA recommends using the long-term harmonic mean flow, since the adverse impacts to fish consumers are reali zed over a lifetime of exposure (EPA, 1991). Harmonic mean is the appropriate measure of centr al tendency when dealing with rates, in this case rates of flow. The harmonic mean is less th an the arithmetic mean and is expressed as Q hm 

### = n/ ∑ (1/Q i 

### ), where n is the number of recorded flows and ∑ (1/Q i 

### ) is the sum of the reciprocals of the flows.

As noted by EPA (1991a), the harmonic mean “provides a more reasonable estimate than the arithmetic mean to represent long-term average river flow. Flood periods in rivers bias the arithmetic mean above the flows typically measur ed. This overstates available dilution. The calculation of the harmonic mean, however, dampens the effect of peak flows. As a result, bias is reduced. The harmonic mean is also an appropriate conservative estimate of long-term average flow in highly regulated river basins, such as the Columbia. In a regulated river basin, the harmonic mean and the arithmetic average are often much closer numerically.”

Loading capacities to meet human health criteria in the mainstem Yakima River are calculated for DDE, dieldrin, chlordane toxaphene, and tota l PCBs in Table 64. The formula is: loading capacity (grams per day) = harmonic mean flow (cfs) x concentrati on (ng/L) x .00245. The human health criteria apply individually to DDT, DDE, and DDD (there is no human health criterion for total DDT). Among these, DDE is the primary concern for fish consumption.

Loading capacity was assessed for four points in the system: Keechelus Lake, Kachess Lake, the upper Yakima River near Umtanum (Yakima Canyon above the city of Yakima), and the lower Yakima River at Kiona. Keechelus Lake has a separate 303(d) listing for PCBs. Kachess Lake qualifies for a PCB listing based on results of Ecology’s 2006 fish tissue survey. Umtanum represents the loading capacity of the Yakima River as it enters the lower Yakima basin. Kiona is the mainstem site with a long-term record of flow that is furthest downstream from the major pesticide and PCB inputs to the lower river.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 174 Table 64. Loading Capacity Estimates for Meeting Human Health Criteria for DDT Compounds, Dieldrin, Chlordane, Toxaphene, and PCBs in the Yakima River.

Waterbody and Location Mean Flow (cfs) Loading Capacity (grams per day)

Pollutant: DDE Dieldrin Chlordane Toxaphene Total PCBs Criterion

(ng/L): 0.59 0.14 0.57 0.73 0.17

Keechelus Lake 338 † * * * * 0.14

Kachess Lake 292 † * * * * 0.12

Yakima River near Umtanum (r.m. 140.5) 1,548 †† 2.2 0.53 2.2 2.8 0.64

Yakima River at Kiona (r.m. 29.9) 2,279 †† 3.3 0.78 3.2 4.2 0.95

*Human health criterion not exceeded in Keechelus or Kachess Lakes. † Arithmetic mean (Yakima River at Martin, 1 994-2007 and Kachess Lake Reservoir). †† Harmonic mean (1994-2007).



### Loading capacity was not calculate d for DDT compounds, dieldrin, or toxaphene in Keechelus or Kachess Lakes because water qualit y criteria are currently being met. The previous TMDLs calculated loading capacities for TSS in the upper and lower Yakima River.

Flow data were obtained from the US BR Yakima Project Hydromet website ( www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/yakima.html ). 1994-2007 was selected as the period of interest. Instream flow limits for the lower Yakima River were established in 1994. Complete flow data were available through 2007, as of this writing.

The loading capacity for PCBs in Keechelus Lake and Kachess Lake was based on the flow at the outlet (Yakima River at Mar tin and Kachess Lake Reservoir). Outflow was assumed equal to inflow. This ignores loss of PCBs due to evaporation and sedimentation, resulting in a conservative estimate of loading capacity. The ar ithmetic rather than harmonic mean was used here because mixing of inflows within a lake is an averaging process.

The loading capacity of the Yakima River for DDE and dieldrin is estimated at 2.2 and 0.53 grams per day, respectively, at Umtanum, incr easing to 3.3 and 0.78 grams per day by Kiona. For chlordane, loading capacities at these points are 2.2 and 3.2 grams per day. The estimates for total PCBs range from 0.12 grams per day in Kachess Lake to 0.95 grams per day at Kiona. Loading capacities of 2.8 – 4.2 grams pe r day were estimated for toxaphene.

Loading capacity for meeting the chronic aquatic life criteria for total DDT and toxaphene was calculated in a similar fashion (Table 65). While minimums are often used as the design flow for aquatic life criteria, low flow is not the critical period for these chemicals. During 2007-08, the lower river approached or exceeded the total DDT criterion only when flows and TSS were up,

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 175 either in the first part of the irrigation season or during the winter. Higher toxaphene concentrations were recorded ea rly in the irrigation season than after the end of irrigation. Therefore, loading capacities for compliance with the chronic aquatic life criteria for total DDT and toxaphene were based on the long-term harmonic mean flow, for additional reasons explained above.

Table 65. Loading Capacity Estimates for Meeti ng Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria for Total DDT and Toxaphene in the Yakima River.

Waterbody and Location Mean Flow (cfs) Loading Capacity (grams per day)

Pollutant: Total DDT Toxaphene Criterion

(ng/L): 1.0 0.2

Yakima River near Umtanum (r.m. 140.5) 1,548 † 3.8 0.76

Yakima River at Kiona (r.m. 29.9) 2,279 † 5.6 1.1

† Harmonic mean (1994-2007).



### Because of its lower persistence and minimal bi oaccumulation potential, chlorpyrifos is a water quality concern only during the growing season, in a nd around the times it is applied. In contrast to total DDT and toxaphene, the Yakima River is most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of chlorpyrifos during the minimum flows of late su mmer and fall. For t oxic wasteload allocation studies in which the hydrologically-based met hod is used, EPA recommends 7Q10 (seven-day, 10-year, low flow) as the design flow for the chronic criteria and the 1Q10 (one-day, 10-year, low flow) as the design flow for the acute criteria (EPA, 1991b).

Therefore, loading capacities for chlorpyrifos we re based on the 7Q10 and 1Q10. Flow statistics were calculated using EPA’s DFLO 3.1 tool http://epa.gov/waterscience/models/dflow/

. Flow data for 1994-2007 were downloaded from the USGS website http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/sw . Results are shown in Tables 66 and 67. Loading capacity estimates for chlorpyrifos range from 54 – 112 grams per day.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 176 Table 66. Loading Capacity Estimates for Meeting Chronic Aquatic Life Criterion for Chlorpyrifos in the Yakima River.

Waterbody and Location 7Q10 Flow* (cfs) Loading Capacity (grams per day) Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos Criterion

(ng/L): 41

Yakima River near Umtanum (r.m. 140.5) 538 54

Yakima River at Kiona (r.m. 29.9) 636 64

*Seven-day, 10-year low flow, 1994-2007.



### Table 67. Loading Capacity Estimates for Meeting Acute Aquatic Life Criterion for Chlorpyrifos in the Yakima River.

Waterbody and Location 1Q10 Flow* (cfs) Loading Capacity (grams per day) Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos Criterion

(ng/L): 83

Yakima River near Umtanum (r.m. 140.5) 514 105

Yakima River at Kiona (r.m. 29.9) 551 112

*One-day, 10-year low flow, 1994-2007.



### The loading capacity for chemical s of concern in the Naches Ri ver, lower Yakima River, and their tributaries and irrigation returns will be determined in the Water Quality Improvement Report scheduled to be completed by the Ecology Water Quality Program at a later date.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 177 

# Pollutant Reductions Needed

Reductions in pollutant levels will be needed to meet water quality standards and TMDL targets for turbidity, pesticides, and PCBs in the Yakima River. Estimates of the percent reductions needed for the mainstem are provided below. The reductions required for point and nonpoint discharges to the Yakima Rive r will be addressed in the TM DL Water Quality Improvement Report to EPA. 

## Turbidity

The turbidity reductions needed in the lower Yakima River mainstem to meet the target set by the existing TMDL are shown in Table 68. During the first part of th e 2007 irrigation season, the higher turbidities recorded for the Yakima Ri ver at Euclid and at Kiona exceeded the TMDL target by 4-12 NTU. These turbidity levels w ould need to be reduced by 26-39% to meet the target. The river was consistently meeting the turbidity target further upstream at Parker.

Table 68. Percent Reductions Needed to Meet the Existing TMDL Turbidity Target in the Lower Yakima River Mainstem during the 2007 Irrigation Season.

Location/ Waterbody Existing TMDL Target Range of Values Exceeding Target During

2007 Irrigation Season Percent Reduction

Needed Yakima R.

at Euclid Background + 5 NTU 15-27 NTU 26-39%

Yakima R.

at Kiona 16-32 NTU 26-37%



## Pesticides and PCBs

Because of variability in the wa ter quality data, the pesticide a nd PCB reductions needed for the lower mainstem (Table 68) were based on water column concentrations estimated from the 2006 fish tissue survey and EPA bioconcentration factors. Fish integrate pollutant levels in the water over time and, thus, can provide a more represen tative estimate of ambient concentrations. Median concentrations for the edible fish tissue samples colle cted from Toppenish to Horn Rapids were used in the estimates (N=29, see Table 7). The reduction for chlordane is for Prosser carp, the only location and sp ecies that exceeded criteria.

Reductions needed to meet human health criteria in lower Yakima River fish are estimated to be in the range of 31-68% for DDE, dieldrin, and total PCBs. 10% and 19% reductions are indicated for toxaphene and chlordane, respectivel y. Greater or lesser reductions than those indicated in Table 69 would be required depe nding on species and location. Year-to-year differences in water supply, which affects dilution, will also influence pesticide and PCB residues in Yakima River fish.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 178 Table 69. Estimates of Loading Reductions Need ed in the Mainstem Lower Yakima River to Meet Human Health Criteria of DDE, Dieldr in, Chlordane, Toxaphene, and Total PCBs [Based on edible fish tissue data in Johnson et al. (2007).]

Pollutant Median Fish TissueConcentration (ug/Kg) EPABioconcentration Factor (L/Kg) Estimated Water ColumnConcentration (ng/L) Estimated Load @ Kiona* (grams/day) Loading Capacity (grams/day) Difference (grams/day) Percent Reduction

Needed

DDE 91 53,600 1.7 9.5 3.3 6.2 65% Dieldrin 1.0 4,670 0.21 1.2 0.78 0.4 33% Chlordane 10 14,100 0.71 4.0 3.2 0.8 19% Toxaphene 11 13,100 0.84 4.7 4.2 0.5 10% Total PCBs 17 31,200 0.54 3.0 0.95 2.1 69% *at 2,279 cfs (1994-2007 harmonic mean flow).



### PCBs also exceed human health criteria in the mainstem upper Yakima River, as well as the Keechelus and Kachess reservoirs. By the sa me calculation as above, a 60% reduction in the load appears to be needed for PCBs in the uppe r mainstem. A similar re duction (59%) applies to PCB levels in fish in the storag e reservoirs. DDE, dieldrin, chlord ane, and toxaphene were either meeting or close to meeting water quality criteri a in both the upper river and storage reservoirs (Table 7).

Chlorpyrifos is not a human health concern in Yakima River fish tissue. Although substantial increases in chlorpyrifos concentrations were observed in water samples from the mainstem lower Yakima River during the 200 7 irrigation season, exceedances of aquatic life cr iteria were only observed in irrigation returns. Reductions n eeded for chlorpyrifos will be addressed in the TMDL Water Quality Improvement Report.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 179 

# Conclusions

Results of this 2007-08 study support the following conclusions:

 Despite significant reductions in soil erosion, irrigation returns c ontinue to discharge elevated levels of suspended sediment that contribute to exceedances of Washington State turbidity and pesticide criteria in th e lower Yakima River.

 A first-time effort to character ize chemical contaminants in urban stormwater discharges to the Yakima River found high levels of pesticid es, PCBs, TSS, and turbidity in runoff from the cities of Yakima, Union Gap, and Elle nsburg (pesticides not analyzed).

 The lower Yakima River and some of its tri butaries and irrigation returns fail to meet (exceed) Washington State human health criter ia for fish consumption for DDE, dieldrin, toxaphene, PCBs, and, marginally, chlordane.

 Toxaphene sometimes exceeds aqua tic life criteria in the lower Yakima River and certain of its tributaries, and ir rigation returns.

 Peak chlorpyrifos concentrati ons in some of the same retu rns exceed aquatic life criteria during the spring and fall when th is insecticide is being applied.

Irrigation returns are the predomin ant cause of degraded water quality in the Yakima River. These are the most important sources to contro l for reducing the adverse effects of elevated turbidity, pesticides, and PCBs. Urban stormwater runoff also appears to be a significant source of these same pollutants and follows in the prio rity of sources that ne ed to be reduced.

This study found that reductions are also needed for PCBs in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent and several pestic ides in fruit packer and vegeta ble processor effluent, if these facilities are to meet water quality criteria at the point of discharge. However, these are relatively low volume discharges. Except for th e current use insecticid es chlorpyrifos and endosulfan, pesticides were not analyzed to a low enough level in WWTP effluent to rule out exceedances of water quality criteria. Thus, some further reductions could ultimately be needed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 180 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 181 

# Recommendations

303(d) Listings/TMDL

1. The current (2008) Water Quality Assessment 303( d) listings are appr opriate for total DDT, DDE, dieldrin, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, PCBs , and dioxin for those areas indicated in Table 58.

2. DDT compounds, dieldrin, chlordane chlorpyrif os, toxaphene, and PCBs should be addressed in the TMDL Water Quality Improvement Report to EPA.

3. Following approval of the TMDL, toxaphene shoul d be added to the Category 4A (has an approved TMDL) listings for the Yakima River watershed.

4. The next water quality assessment process s hould remove endosulfan and alpha-BHC from the 303(d) list for the lower Yakima River (WRIA 37) and placed them in Category 1 (Meets Standards).

5. The 303(d) listing for chlordane in the upper Yakima River (WRIA 39) should be removed and placed in Category 1.

6. The 303(d) listing for dioxin in Keechelus Lake (WRIA 39) should be removed and placed in Category 1. 

## Source Tracing

7. Work with city and county officials to iden tify sources of pesticides, PCBs, suspended sediment, and turbidity in stormwater from Yakima, Union Gap, Selah, and Ellensburg (PCBs only). Improving current understanding of spatial and temporal variability should be among the first steps in this effort.

8. Identify sources of toxaphene to Wilson Cree k, Moxee Drain, Granger Drain, and, especially, Sulphur Creek Wasteway. Screen other tributar ies and irrigation return s for the presence of toxaphene.

9. Identify PCB sources to Sulphur Cr eek Wasteway and Granger Drain. 

## Monitoring

10. Characterize dry weather discharge (winter a nd irrigation season) of pesticides, PCBs, suspended sediment, and turbidity from Yakima area storm drains.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 182 11. Work with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamati on, the Yakama Nation, irrigation districts, conservation districts, and othe r interested parties to cont inue and, where appropriate, expand turbidity monitoring of priority irrigati on returns identified thr ough the present study.

12. Explore the possibility of installing a continuous turbidity mon itor in the Yakima River at Kiona.

13. Continue chlorpyrifos monitoring in Sul phur Creek Wasteway, Spring Creek, and Marion Drain through Ecology’s Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in SalmonidBearing Streams

.

14. Periodically monitor lower Yakima River fish for DDE, dieldrin, chlordane, toxaphene, PCBs, and dioxin to assess progress toward meeting human health criteria and the need to continue the fish consumption advisory for PCBs.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 183 

# References

Agee, B. 1985. Toxics Substances Monitoring Program. California Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Monitoring Re port No. 85-1-WQ, Sacramento, CA. Anderson, R. 2008. Evaluation of the Effectivene ss of Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load Targets on the Reduction in the Levels of Susp ended Sediment and Turbidity in the Upper Yakima River. M.S. Thesis, Washi ngton State University, Pullman, WA. ATSDR. 1996. Toxicological Profile for Toxaphe ne. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, Department of Human and Health Servi ces, Atlanta, Georgia. www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp94.html

. ATSDR. 2000. Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, Department of Human and Health Services, Atlanta, Georgia. www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html

. Boucher, P.R. 1975. Sediment Transport by Irrigation Return Flows in Four Small Drains within the DID-18 Drainage of the Su lphur Creek Basin, Yakima County, Washington, April 1979 to October 1981. Water Resources Investigati ons Report 83-4167, U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA. 149 pp. Boucher, P.R. and M.O. Fretwell. 1982. Irrigat ion-water Quality in the Sulphur Creek Basin, Yakima and Benton Counties, Washington, Apri l 1976 through March 1977. Open File Report 81-1008. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA. 68 pp. Burke, C., P. Anderson, D. Dugger, and J. Cowles. 2006. Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in Salmonid-Bearing Streams, 2003-2005. Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Agriculture , Olympia, WA. Ecology Publication No. 06

- 03-036. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0603036.html

. Callahan, M.A. et al. 1979. Water-related Enviro nmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants. EPA-440/4-79-029a. Carmack, K. 2008. Personal communication. Washington State Department of Ecology, Central Regional Office, Yakima, WA.

CH2M Hill. 1975. Characterization of Present Water-quality Conditions in the Yakima Basin. Report to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Technical Bulletin 10. 47 pp. Coffin, C. 2008. Personal communication, 9/05/ 08 email. Washington State Department of Ecology, Central Regional Office, Yakima, WA. Coffin, C. and A. Johnson. 2007 Draft. Quality Assurance Project Plan: TMDL Effectiveness Monitoring for the Upper Yakima River Suspen ded Sediment and Organochlorine Pesticide TMDL - An Addendum to the Yakima Rive r Chlorinated Pesticide and PCB QAPP. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 184 Coffin, C., R. Plotnikoff, a nd R. Anderson. 2006. Lower Yakima River Suspended Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load Study Water Qual ity Effectiveness Monitoring Report. Washington State Department of Ecology, Yakima, WA. Publication No. 06-03-014. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0603014.html

. Corps of Engineers. 1978. Yakima Valley Regional Water Management Study Volumes 1-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA. Creech, J. and J. Joy. 2002. Upper Yakima River Basin Suspended Sediment, Turbidity, and Organochlorine Pesticide Total Maximum Daily Load: Submittal Report. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA . Publication No. 02-10-047-WQ. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0210047.html

. CRITFC. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin. Te ch. Rept. 94-3. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, OR. Davis, D. 1993. Washington State Pesticide Mo nitoring Program – Reconnaissance Sampling of Surface Waters (1992). Washington Stat e Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 93-e09. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/93e09.html

. Davis, D. 1996. Washington State Pesticid e Monitoring Program – 1994 Surface Water Sampling Report. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 96-305. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/96305.html

. Davis, D. and A. Johnson. 1994. Washington St ate Pesticide Monitoring Program – 1993 Surface Water Sampling Report. Washington St ate Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 94-164. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/94164.html

. Davis, D., A. Johnson, and D. Serdar. 1998a. Wa shington State Pesticide Monitoring Program – 1995 Surface Water Sampling Report. Washington St ate Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 98-300. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/98300.html

. Davis, D., D. Serdar, and A. Johnson. 1998b. Wa shington State Pesticide Monitoring Program – 1995 Fish Tissue Sampling Report. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 98-312. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/98312.html

. Dolan, D.M., A.K. Yui, and R.D. Geist. 1981. Evaluation of River Load Estimation Methods for Total Phosphorus. J. Great Lakes Research 7(3):207-214. Dugger, D., C. Burke, J. Jorden, P. Anderson, D. Norton, and J. Cowles. 2008. Pesticides in Salmonid-Bearing Streams: Intensive Sampling in an Agricultural Dr ain, A Cooperative Study by the Washington State Depart ment of Ecology and the Wash ington State Department of Agriculture. Ecology P ublication No. 08-03-020. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0803020.html

. Ebbert, J.C. and S.S. Embrey. 2002. Pesticides in Surface Water of the Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1999–2000—Their Occurrence and an Assessment of Factors Affecting Concentrations and Loads. U.S. Geological Su rvey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4211. http://or.water.usgs.gov/pubs/WRIR01-4211/index.html

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 185 Ebbert, J.C., S.S. Embrey, and J.A. Kelley. 200 2b. Concentrations and Loads of Suspended Sediment and Nutrients in Surface Water of the Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1999-2000 – With an Analysis of Trends in Concentrati ons. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4026. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034026/ Edwards, C.A. 1973. Persistent Pesticides in the Environment. CRC Press, Cleveland, OH. Ecology. 1979. Irrigated Agriculture Water Quality Management Plan Section 208, P.L. 95-217. Washington State Departme nt of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. Report 79-5b. 55 pp. Ecology. 1996. Total Maximum Daily Load Guid elines. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 97-315. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97315.html

. Ecology, 2004. Stormwater Management Manual fo r Eastern Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program , Olympia, WA. Publication No. 04-10-076. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0410076.html

. Ecology. 2006. Assessment of Water Quality fo r the Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b) Integrated Report. WQP Policy 1-11, Revised: Sept ember, 2006. Water Quality Program, Washington State De partment of Ecology. Ellis, G.S., J.N. Huckins, C.E. Rostad, C.J. Schmitt, J.D. Petty, and P. MacCarthy. 1995. Evaluation of Lipid-Containing Semipermeable Membrane Devices (SPMDs) for Monitoring Organochlorine Contaminants in the Upper Mi ssissippi River. Environmental Toxicology Chemistry 14:1875-1884. EPA. 1990. Specifications and Guidance for Obta ining Contaminant-Free Sample Containers. U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency. OSWER Directive #93240.0-05. EPA. 1991a. Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) to Limit Discharges of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) to the Columbia River Basin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA. 1991b. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/505/2-90-001. EPA. 1995. Guidelines for Preparation of th e 1996 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b) reports). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-841B-95-001.

EPA. 2002a. Columbia River Basin Fish Cont aminant Survey, 1996-1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA-910/R-02-006. EPA. 2002b. Estimated Per Capita Fish Consump tion in the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-821-R-00-025. Fuhrer, G., J. Morace, H.M. Johnson, J.F. 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. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1237, 34 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ /2004/1237/pdf/circular1237.pdf

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 186 Gary Struthers Associates, Inc. 2005. Okanoga n Sewer Investigation Report: Lower Okanogan Sewer Investigation for PCBs and DDT. Prepar ed for Washington State Department of Ecology. Golding, S. 2002. Spokane Area Point Source PCB Survey, May 2001. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 02-03-009. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0203009.html Hallock, D. 2005. A Comparison of Water Quality Data Collected from Two Washington Rivers by the Department of Ecology and the U.S. Geologi cal Survey. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 05-03-009. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0503009.html Hallock, D. 2007. Personal communication, 11/ 6/2008 email. Freshwater Monitoring Unit, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Huckins, J.N., J.D. Petty, and K. Booij. 2006. Monitors of Organic Chemicals in the Environment: Semipermeable Membrane Devices . Springer Science and Business Media, New York, NY. 223 pp. Huckins, J.N., J.D. Petty, H.F. Prest, R.C. Clark, D.A. Alvarez, C.E. Orazio, J.A. Lebo, W.L. Cranor, and B.T. Johnson. 2000. A Guide to the Use of Semipermeable Membrane Devices (SPMDs) as Samplers of Waterb orne Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants. U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Envir onmental Research Center, Columbia MO. Hyne, R., F. Pablo, M. Aistr ope, A.W. Leonard, and N. Ah mad. 2004. Comparison of TimeIntegrated Pesticide Concentrations Determined from Field-Deployed Passive Samplers with Daily River-Water Extractions. Environm ental Toxicology Chemistry. 23(9):2090-2098. Johnson, A. 2007a. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Yakima River Chlorinated Pesticides, PCBs, Suspended Sediment, and Turbidity To tal Maximum Daily Load Study. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Publication No. 07-03-107. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703107.html

. Johnson, A. 2007b. Standard Operating Procedure for Using Semipermeable Membrane Devices to Monitor Hydrophobic Organic Compounds in Su rface Water. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Johnson, A., K. Seiders, and D. Norton. 2010. An Assessment of the PCB and Dioxin Background in Washington Freshwater Fish, with Recommendations for Prioritizing 303(d) Listings. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 10-03-007. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0803102.html 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 State Department of Ecology, Ol ympia, WA. Publication No. 07-03-036. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703036.html

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 187 Johnson, A., B. Era-Miller, R. Coots, and S. Golding. 2004. A Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs in the Walla Walla River. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 04-03-032. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0403032.html Johnson, A. and C. Burke. 2006. Results from Monitoring Endosulfan and Dieldrin in Wide Hollow Creek. Washington State Depa rtment of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 06-03-038. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0603038.html Johnson, A., D. Norton, and B. Yake. 1986. O ccurrence and Significance of DDT Compounds and Other Contaminants in Fish, Water, and Sediment from the Yakima River Basin. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 86-5. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/865.html Johnson, A., D. Norton, and B. Yake. 1988. Persiste nce of DDT in the Yakima River Drainage. Archives Environmental Contamin ation and Toxicology, 17(289-297). Joy, J. 2002. Upper Yakima River Basin Suspended Sediment and Organochlorine Pesticide Total Maximum Daily Load. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 02-03-012. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0203012.html Joy, J. 2005. Quality Assurance Project Plan : Yakima Area Creeks Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Study. Wa shington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 05-03-101. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0503101.html Joy, J. and B. Patterson. 1997. A Suspended Se diment and DDT Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation Report for the Yakima River. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 97-321. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97321.html Karickhoff, S.W. 1981. Semi-empirical Estima tion of Sorption of Hydrophobic Pollutants on Natural Sediments and Soils. Chemosphere 10(8):833-846. Levigne, R. 1997. Waters of the U.S. Memorandum to Carl Nuechterlein from Ronald L. Levigne, Assistant Attorney Genera l, Ecology Division, February 6, 1007. Lombard, S. and C. Kirchmer. 2004. Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies. Washington Stat e Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 04-03-030. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0403030.html

. Lubliner, B., J. Ross, and J. Ryf. 2006. Pullm an Stormwater Pilot Study for Pesticides, PCBs, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria, 2005-2006. Washi ngton State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 06-03-034. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0603034.html Lubliner, B. 2007. PCB Monitoring at Walla Walla and College Place W, 2007-07. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 07-03-046. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703046.html Lubliner, B. 2009. PCB and Dieldrin Monitori ng in the Palouse River Watershed, 2007-008: Wastewater Treatment Plants and Abandoned Landfills. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 09-03-004. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0903004.html

.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 188 Mackay, D. and A. Fraser. 2000. Bioaccumula tion of Persistent Organic Chemicals: Mechanisms and Models. Environmental Pollution 110:375-391. Mackay, D., W-Y Shiu, and K-C Ma. 1997. I llustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate of Organi c Compounds, Volume V: Pesticide Chemicals. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, NY. McKenzie, S. and D. Curtiss. 1989. Surface-wa ter-quality Assessment of the Yakima River basin, Washington: A Pilot Study. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-60. Meadows, J.C., K.R. Echols, J.N. Huckins, F.A. Borsuk, R.F. Carline, and D.E. Tillitt. 1998. Estimation of Uptake Rates for PCB Congene rs Accumulated by Semipermeable Membrane Devices and Brown Trout ( Salmo trutta ). Environ. Sci. Tech. 32:1847-1852. Mischke, T., K. Brunetti, V. Acosta, D. Weater , and M. Brown. 1985. Agricultural Sources of DDT Residues in California’s Environment. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA. Molenaar, D. 1985. Water in the Lower Yakima River Basin, Washington. Water Supply Bulletin 53. Washington Stat e Department of Ecology and U.S. Geological Survey, Olympia, WA. 159 pp.Morace, J.L., Fuhrer, G.J., Rinella, J.F., S.W. McKenzie, and others. 1999. Surface-waterquality Assessment of the Yakima River Basin in Washington: An Overview of Major Findings, 1987091. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Re sources Investigations Report 98-4113. Nelson, L.M. 1979. Sediment Transport by Irrigati on Return Flows in the Lower Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1975 and 1976 Irrigation Seasons . Open File Report 78-946. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA. 76 pp. NOAA. 2008. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation: Final Biological Opinion, Environmental Protection Agency Registration of Pesticides C ontaining Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Malathion. National Oceanic and Atmosphe ric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD. Parsons, Inc, 2007. Spokane River PCB TMDL St ormwater Loading Analysis Final Technical Report. Prepared by Parsons for U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency Region 10 and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703055.html Rantalainen, A.L., M.G. Ikonomou, and I.H. Rogers. 1998. Lipid-Containing Semipermeable Membrane Devices (SPMDs) as Concentrators of Toxic Chemicals in the Lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Chemosphere 37:1119-1138. Rinella, J.F., S.W. McKenzie, J. K. Crawford, W.T. Foreman, G.J. Fuhrer, and J.L. Morace. 1999. Surface-Water-Quality Assessment of the Yakima River Basin, Washington: Distribution of Pesticides and Other Organic Compounds in Water, Sediment, and Aquatic Biota, 1987–91: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2354–B, 180 p.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 189 Rinella, Joseph F., P.A. Hamilton, and S.W. McKenzie. 1993. Persistence of the DDT Pesticide in the Yakima River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1090. Risebrough, R.W., W.M. Jarman, and W. Walker . 1984. Evidence for Recent Mobilization of DDT in California. A report to the State Wa ter Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. 39 pp. Ryan, J.W. 1997. Irrigation Water is “Water of the U.S.” Memorandum to Ronald L. Levigne from Joseph W. Ryan, Assistant Regional Couns el, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. Schmitt, C.J., J.L. Zajicek, and P.H. Peterman. 1990. National Contaminant Monitoring Program: Residues of Organochlorine Chemicals in U.S. Freshwater Fish, 1976 - 84. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:748-781. Serdar, D. 2003. TMDL Technical Assessment of DDT and PCBs in the Lower Okanogan River Basin Washington State Department of Ecol ogy, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 03-03-013. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0303013.html Serdar, D., K. Kinney, and P. Hallinan. 2006 (dra ft). Spokane River PCBs Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. P ublication No. 06-03-024. www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0603024.html Shueler, T.R., 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual fo r Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. Publication No. 87703. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Yakima Co-operative River Basin Study, Draft December 1978. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conser vation Service, and Forest Service, Spokane, WA.

WDOH. 1993. DDT in Bottom Fish from the Yakima River. Wash ington State Department of Health, Office of Toxic Substances, Olympia, WA. Zuroske, M. 2004. Conservation Practices a nd Water Quality Trends in Sulphur Creek Wasteway and Granger Drain Watersheds, 1997- 2002. South Yakima Conservation District and Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control. Zuroske, M. 2008. Lower Yakima River Eutrophication Study: Preliminary Highlights. April 30, 2008 presentation at the Washington State Depa rtment of Ecology, Central Regional Office, Yakima, WA.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 190 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 191 

# Appendices

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 192 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 193 

## Appendix A. Yakima Basin 303(d) Listings Based on Edible Fish Tissue Samples (2008 list)

Water Body Approximate Location Listing ID Parameter

Upper Yakima River (WRIA* 39) Keechelus Lake Near inlet 43146 Total PCBs Keechelus Lake Near inlet 43128 Dioxin

Yakima River Umtanum 20182 Chlordane Yakima River Umtanum 20219 Total PCBs Yakima River Umtanum 34889 Dioxin Naches River (WRIA 38)

Cowiche Creek Cowiche Creek Near mouth Near mouth 17214 

### 52833 4,4'-DDE Total PCBs Lower Yakima River (WRIA 37)

Yakima River Union Gap 14253 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Union Gap 14257 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Union Gap 14255 4,4'-DDD Yakima River Union Gap 14259 Alpha-BHC Yakima River Union Gap 14261 Total PCBs Yakima River Zillah 7351 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Zillah 8874 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Zillah 8875 Dieldrin Yakima River Granger 19595 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Granger 19597 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Granger 19616 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Granger 19618 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Granger 20047 Total PCBs Yakima River Yakima River Yakima River Granger Granger Granger 20045 

### 34905 34913 Total PCBs Dioxin Dioxin Yakima River Grandview 16430 4,4'-DDD Yakima River Prosser 19598 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Prosser 19619 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Prosser 19705 Chlordane Yakima River Prosser 34887 Dioxin Yakima River Benton City 8897 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Benton City 14252 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Benton City 19602 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Benton City 14256 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Benton City 8893 4,4'-DDE

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 194 Water Body Approximate Location Listing ID Parameter

Yakima River Benton City 14254 4,4'-DDD Yakima River Benton City 14258 Alpha-BHC Yakima River Benton City 7350 Total PCBs Yakima River Horn Rapids 19622 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Horn Rapids 19601 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Horn Rapids 8861 4,4'-DDE Yakima River Horn Rapids 8902 Dieldrin Yakima River Horn Rapids 8864 Total PCBs Yakima River Horn Rapids 8863 Total PCBs Yakima River Near mouth 19614 4,4'-DDT Yakima River Near mouth 19592 4,4'-DDE *Water Resource Inventory Area.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 195 

## Appendix B. Yakima Basin 303(d) Listings Based on Water Samples (2008 list)

Waterbody Listing ID Parameter

Lower Yakima River (WRIA* 37) Yakima River @ Union Gap 8876 DDT Yakima River @ Union Gap 8877 4,4'-DDE Yakima River, Blue Slough Yakima River, Blue Slough Yakima River, Blue Slough Yakima River, Blue Slough Yakima River, Blue Slough 

### 7377 7376 7378 7380 7383 4,4'-DDD 4,4’-DDE Chlorpyrifos DDT Endosulfan Yakima River bw. Granger 8854 Dieldrin Yakima River bw. Granger 8873 DDT Yakima River nr. Grandview 8889 4,4'-DDD Yakima River nr. Grandview 8891 4,4'-DDE Yakima River bw. Spring Cr. 8896 DDT Yakima River @ Kiona 8860 DDT Yakima River @ Kiona 8862 4,4'-DDD Yakima River @ Kiona 8865 Endosulfan Yakima River @ Kiona 8871 Dieldrin Yakima River @ Kiona 8890 4,4'-DDE Yakima River bw. Kiona 

### 12868 4,4’-DDE Wide Hollow Creek 8849 4,4'-DDD Wide Hollow Creek 8848 4,4'-DDE Wide Hollow Creek 8855 DDT Wide Hollow Creek 8856 Dieldrin Wide Hollow Creek 8857 Endosulfan Marion Drain 

### 52838 Chlorpyrifos Moxee (Birchfield) Drain 7373 DDT Moxee (Birchfield) Drain 7374 Dieldrin Moxee (Birchfield) Drain 7375 Endosulfan Granger Drain 7362 4,4'-DDD Granger Drain 7361 4,4'-DDE Granger Drain 7360 DDT Granger Drain 7363 Dieldrin Granger Drain 7364 Endosulfan Sulphur Creek Wasteway 8906 4,4'-DDD Sulphur Creek Wasteway 7385 4,4'-DDE Sulphur Creek Wasteway 8909 DDT

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 196 Waterbody Listing ID Parameter Sulphur Creek Wasteway 7384 DDT Sulphur Creek Wasteway 8911 Dieldrin Sulphur Creek Wasteway Sulphur Creek Wasteway 8908 

### 52842 Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Snipes Creek 7369 4,4'-DDD Snipes Creek 7367 4,4'-DDD Snipes Creek 7370 4,4'-DDE Snipes Creek 7366 4,4'-DDE Snipes Creek 7365 DDT Spring Creek 7355 4,4'-DDD Spring Creek 7357 4,4'-DDD Spring Creek 7354 4,4'-DDE Spring Creek 7358 4,4'-DDE Spring Creek Spring Creek 7353 

### 52841 DDT Chlorpyrifos *Water Resource Inventory Area.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 197 

## Appendix C. Use Designations for WRIA 37- Lower Yakima River, WRIA 38-Naches River, and WRIA 39-Upper Yakima River (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/reference_files/table-602.pdf.)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 198 This page is purposely left blankTABLE 602Aquatic Life UsesRecreationUsesWater SupplyUsesMisc. UsesUse Designations for Fresh Waters by Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Char Spawning /Rearing Core Summer Habitat Spawning/Rearing Rearing/Migration Only Redband Trout Industrial Water Agricultural Water Stock Water Wildlife Habitat Harvesting Commerce/Navigation Boating Aesthetics

Warm Water Species Ex Primary Cont Domestic Water Secondary Cont Primary Cont1. Temperature shall not exceed a 1-DMax of 20.0°C due to humanactivities. When natural conditions exceed a 1-DMax of 20.0°C, no temperatureincrease will be allowed which will raise the receiving water temperature by greaterthan 0.3°C; nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t= 34/(T + 9).2. The following two notes apply:(a) Below Clearwater River (river mile 139.3). Temperature shall not exceed a 1-DMax of 20.0°C due to human activities. When natural conditionsexceed a 1-DMax of 20.0°C, notemperature increase will be allowed which will raise the receiving water temperature by greaterthan 0.3°C; nor shall suchtemperature increases, at any time, exceed t = 34/(T + 9). Special condition - special fish passage exemption as described in WAC 173-201A-200 (1) (f).(b) Above Clearwater River (river mile 139.3). Temperature shall not exceed a 1-DMax of 20.0°C due to human activities. When natural conditionsexceed a 1-DMax of 20.0°C, notemperature increases will be allowed which will raise the receiving water temperature by greaterthan 0.3°C; nor shallsuch temperature increases, atany time, exceed 0.3°C due to any single source or 1.1°C dueto all such activities combined.WRIA 36 Esquatzel CouleeThere are no specific waterbodyentries for this WRIAWRIA 37 Lower YakimaAhtanum Creek North Fork's unnamed tributaries at latitude 46.5465 longitude -120.885733333333333Ahtanum Creek North Fork's unnamed tributaries at latitude 46.5395 longitude -120.985133333333333Ahtanum Creek, between junction with South Fork and junction of North andMiddle Forks (including tributaries)except where designated Char.33333333333Ahtanum Creek, North Fork, and Middle Fork Ahtanum Creek: All waters(including tributaries) above the junction.33333333333Ahtanum Creek, South Fork, and all tributaries33333333333Carpenter Gulch and all tributaries33333333333Page199TABLE 602Aquatic Life UsesRecreationUsesWater SupplyUsesMisc. UsesUse Designations for Fresh Waters by Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Char Spawning /Rearing Core Summer Habitat Spawning/Rearing Rearing/Migration Only Redband Trout Warm Water Species Ex Primary Cont Domestic Water Secondary Cont Primary Cont Industrial Water Agricultural Water Stock Water Wildlife Habitat Harvesting Commerce/Navigation Boating AestheticsFoundation Creek and all tributaries33333333333Nasty Creek and all tributaries33333333333Sulphur Creek3333333333Yakima River from mouth to Cle Elum River (river mile 185.6) except wherespecifically designated otherwise in Table 602.133333333333Notes for WRIA 37:1. Temperature shall not exceed a 1-DMax of 21.0°C due to humanactivities. When natural conditions exceed a 1-DMax of 21.0°C, no temperatureincrease will be allowed which will raise the receiving water temperature by greaterthan 0.3°C; nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t= 34/(T + 9).WRIA 38 NachesAmerican River and all tributaries33333333333Barton Creek and all tributaries33333333333Bumping Lake's unnamed tributaries atlatitude 46.8850 longitude -121.277933333333333Bumping River's unnamed tributaries at latitude 46.9317 longitude -121.2067(outlet of Flat Iron Lake).33333333333Bumping River and tributaries downstream of the upper end of Bumping Lake(except where designated Char)33333333333Bumping River (and tributaries) upstream of Bumping Lake.33333333333Cedar Creek and all tributaries33333333333Clear Creek and tributaries (including Clear Lake)33333333333Crow Creek andall tributaries33333333333Deep Creek and all tributaries33333333333Page200TABLE 602Aquatic Life UsesRecreationUsesWater SupplyUsesMisc. UsesUse Designations for Fresh Waters by Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Char Spawning /Rearing Core Summer Habitat Spawning/Rearing Rearing/Migration Only Redband Trout Warm Water Species Ex Primary Cont Primary Cont Secondary Cont Domestic Water Industrial Water Agricultural Water Stock Water Wildlife Habitat Harvesting Commerce/Navigation Boating AestheticsGoat Creek and all tributaries33333333333Granite Creek and all tributaries33333333333Indian Creek and all tributaries33333333333Little Naches River and Bear Creek: All waters (including tributaries) above thejunction33333333333Little Naches River, SouthFork and all tributaries33333333333Naches River and tributaries from latitude 46.7640 longitude -120.8286 (justupstream of Cougar Canyon) to Snoqualmie National Forest boundary (river mile35.7) (except where designated Char).33333333333Naches River from Snoqualmie National Forest boundary (river mile 35.7) toheadwaters (except where designated Char).33333333333Pileup Creek and all tributaries33333333333Quartz Creek and all tributaries33333333333Rattlesnake Creek: All waters above the junction with North Fork RattlesnakeCreek33333333333Rattlesnake Creek, North Fork, all waters above latitude 46.8107 longitude121.0694 (from and including the unnamed tributary just above junction withmainstem).33333333333Sand Creek and all tributaries33333333333Sunrise Creek (latitude 46.9042 longitude -121.2431) and all tributaries.33333333333Tieton River and tributaries (except where otherwise designated).33333333333Tieton River, North Fork (including tributaries) above the junction at Clear Lake33333333333Page201TABLE 602Aquatic Life UsesRecreationUsesWater SupplyUsesMisc. UsesUse Designations for Fresh Waters by Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Char Spawning /Rearing Core Summer Habitat Spawning/Rearing Rearing/Migration Only Redband Trout Warm Water Species Ex Primary Cont Primary Cont Secondary Cont Domestic Water Industrial Water Agricultural Water Stock Water Wildlife Habitat Harvesting Commerce/Navigation Boating AestheticsTieton River, South Fork, and all tributaries33333333333WRIA 39 Upper YakimaCle Elum River from mouth to latitude 47.3805 longitude -121.0983 (above LittleSalmon la Sac Creek)33333333333Cle Elum River and all tributaries from junction with unnamed tributary at andlatitude 47.3805 longitude -121.0983 to headwaters.33333333333Indian Creek and tributaries downstream of Wenatchee National Forest boundarybelow33333333333Indian Creek and tributaries in or above national forest boundary33333333333Jack Creek and tributaries downstreamof Wenatchee National Forest boundarybelow33333333333Jack Creek and tributaries in or above national forest boundary33333333333Little Kachess Lake (narrowest point dividing Kachess Lake from Little KachessLake) and all tributaries33333333333Manastash Creek: All waters above the Junction of the North and South Forksthat are downstream of the Wenatchee National Forest boundary.33333333333Manastash Creek: All waters above the Junction of the North and South Forksthat are in or above the Wenatchee National Forest.33333333333Manastash Creek mainstem from mouth to junction of North and South Forks33333333333Manastash Creek, tributaries to mainstem, between the mouth and the junction ofNorth and South Forks33333333333Swauk Creek mainstem from mouth to junction with First Creek33333333333Page202TABLE 602Aquatic Life UsesRecreationUsesWater SupplyUsesMisc. UsesUse Designations for Fresh Waters by Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Char Spawning /Rearing Core Summer Habitat Spawning/Rearing Rearing/Migration Only Redband Trout Warm Water Species Ex Primary Cont Primary Cont Secondary Cont Domestic Water Industrial Water Agricultural Water Stock Water Wildlife Habitat Harvesting Commerce/Navigation Boating AestheticsSwauk Creek from junction with First Creek to Wenatchee National Forest(including tributaries)33333333333Taneum Creek, tributaries to mainstem, from mouth to Wenatchee NationalForest boundary33333333333Taneum Creek mainstem from mouth to Wenatchee National Forest boundary33333333333Teanaway River mainstem from mouth to West Fork Teanaway River33333333333Teanaway River, tributaries to mainstem, from mouth to West Fork TeanawayRiver33333333333Teanaway River, West Fork, and tributaries downstream of the WenatcheeNational Forest33333333333Teanaway River, West Fork, and tributaries upstream of the Wenatchee NationalForest33333333333Teanaway River, North Fork, and tributaries from junction with West Fork toJungle Creek that are downstream of the Wenatchee National Forest boundary(except where designated otherwise).33333333333Teanaway River, North Fork, and tributaries from junction with West Fork toJungle Creek that are in or above the Wenatchee National Forest boundary(except where designated otherwise).33333333333Teanaway River, North Fork, and all tributaries aboveand including Jungle Creek33333333333Yakima River mainstem from mouth to Cle Elum River (river mile 185.6) exceptwhere specifically designated otherwise in Table 602.133333333333Yakima River and tributaries from Cle Elum River (river mile 185.6) toheadwaters (except where designated otherwise).33333333333Page203TABLE 602Aquatic Life UsesRecreationUsesWater SupplyUsesMisc. UsesUse Designations for Fresh Waters by Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Char Spawning /Rearing Core Summer Habitat Spawning/Rearing Rearing/Migration Only Redband Trout Warm Water Species Ex Primary Cont Primary Cont Secondary Cont Domestic Water Industrial Water Agricultural Water Stock Water Wildlife Habitat Harvesting Commerce/Navigation Boating AestheticsYakima River and tributaries above the unnamed tributary (latitude 47.2927longitude -121.2971) entering the Yakima River in Sect.25 T21NR12E.33333333333Notes for WRIA 39:1. Temperature shall not exceed a 1-DMax of 21.0°C due to humanactivities. When natural conditions exceed a 1-DMax of 21.0°C, no temperatureincrease will be allowed which will raise the receiving water temperature by greaterthan 0.3°C; nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t= 34/(T + 9).WRIA 40 Alkaki-SquilchuckThere are no specific waterbody entries for this WRIAWRIA 41 Lower CrabCrab Creek and tributaries3333333333WRIA 42 Grand CouleeCrab Creek and tributaries3333333333WRIA 43 Upper Crab-WilsonCrab Creek and tributaries3333333333WRIA 44 Moses CouleeThere are no specific waterbody entries for this WRIAWRIA 45 WenatcheeChiwaukum Creek from junction with Skinney Creek to headwaters (includingtributaries)33333333333Chiwawa River from mouth to Chickamin Creek (including tributaries)33333333333Chiwawa River (and all tributaries) above and including Chickamin Creek33333333333Page 204

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 205 

## Appendix D. 2006 Fish Tissue DataYakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study FindingsPage 206Table D-1. Chlorinated Pesticide Concentrations in Yakima River Fish Fillet Samples, 2006 (ug/Kg, wet weight; parts per billion).ReachSample No.Species Lipids (%)Keechelus Lake 6394088LSS2.08 0.37 U2.8 0.5 3.30.37 U 0.83 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UKeechelus Lake 6394089LSS1.56 0.38 U2.4 0.4 2.80.38 U 0.74 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UKeechelus Lake 6394090LSS1.6 0.38 U1.30.38 U1.30.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UKeechelus Lake 6394092NPM1.13 0.4 U1.80.4 U1.80.4 U 0.88 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UKeechelus Lake 6394093NPM1.09 0.37 U3.30.37 U3.30.37 U 1.1 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UKeechelus Lake 6394095KOK2.540.41 2.4 0.83 3.60.37 U 0.49 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U0.72 0.720.37 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UKeechelus Lake 6394096KOK2.78 0.4 U2 0.79 2.80.4 U 0.42 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.6 0.60.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJKeechelus Lake 6394097KOK3.330.47 2.1 0.87 3.40.39 U 0.5 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.78 0.780.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UKeechelus Lake 6394099CTT1.86 0.39 U0.77 0.28 J 1.1 J0.39 U0.23 J0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U0.23 J0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UKeechelus Lake 6394100CTT1.36 0.39 U0.610.39 U0.60.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UKeechelus Lake 6394101CTT1.09 0.39 U0.440.39 U0.40.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UKeechelus Lake 6394103 MWF 2.55 0.39 U0.590.39 U0.60.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UKeechelus Lake 6394104 MWF 2.96 0.39 U0.870.39 U0.90.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UKachess Lake 6394080LSS0.69 0.4 U0.760.4 U0.760.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UKachess Lake 6394081LSS0.48 0.4 U0.870.4 U0.870.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UKachess Lake 6394082LSS0.55 0.39 U0.860.39U0.860.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJKachess Lake 6394084NPM0.58 0.4 U2.70.4 U2.70.4 U 0.57 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UKachess Lake 6394085NPM0.86 0.37 U4.20.37 U4.20.37 U 0.92 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U0.63 0.630.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UKachess Lake 6394086NPM0.6 0.39 U4.20.39 U4.20.39 U 0.98 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UCle Elum6414068 MWF 4.240.27 J 6.6 0.8 8 J0.39 U0.560.39 U 0.39 U0.37 J 0.93 J0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJCle Elum6414069 MWF 5.090.54 5.7 3.1 9 0.32 J 0.96 0.21 J0.39 U1.6 3.09 J0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJCle Elum6414070 MWF 4.420.49 18 2 20 0.21 J 0.740.4 U 0.4 U1.1 2.05 J0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.29 J0.4 UJCle Elum6414072 BLS 4.030.45 9.1 1.4 110.38 U0.380.38 U 0.38 U0.28 0.660.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJCle Elum6414073 BLS 2.80.3 J 5.1 0.77 6 J0.39 U0.28 J0.39 U 0.39 U0.29 J 0.57 J0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UCle Elum6414074 BLS 2.510.81 9.4 1.2 110.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJCle Elum6414076 NPM 1.980.71 120.39 U130.39 U 0.41 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.57 0.570.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ0.24 J0.39 UJCle Elum6414077 NPM 1.730.43 120.38 U120.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U0.53 0.530.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ0.29 J0.38 UJCle Elum6414078 NPM 1.270.62 8.80.39 U90.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U0.61 0.610.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ0.12 J0.39 UJYakima Canyon 6414050 MWF 4.511.2 41 3.9 46 0.4 0.950.4 U 0.4 U1.5 2.850.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.22 J0.4 UJYakima Canyon 6414051 MWF 5.430.7 23 2 260.39 U0.840.39 U0.39 U0.87 1.710.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.24 J0.39 UJYakima Canyon 6414052 MWF 4.671.1 40 3.7 45 0.53 1.1 0.22 J 0.21 J 2.1 4.16 0.4 J0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.510.4 UYakima Canyon 6414057 NPM 2.871.4 45 1.4 48 0.27 J 1.50.4 U 0.4 U1.7 3.47 J0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.490.4 UYakima Canyon 6414058 NPM 2.041.1 34 0.36 J 35 J 0.21 J 0.790.38 U 0.38 U1.4 2.4 J0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U1.10.38 UYakima Canyon 6414059 NPM 1.760.56 15 0.2 J 16 J0.39 U0.530.39 U 0.39 U0.9 1.430.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.720.39 UYakima Canyon 6414061 BLS 4.721.3 26 3.9 31 0.58 0.77 0.21 J 0.2 J 1.3 3.060.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U0.630.38 UYakima Canyon 6414062 BLS 2.160.52 5.1 0.97 70.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ 0.37 U 0.37 U0.860.37 UYakima Canyon 6414063 BLS 2.930.34 J 5.1 0.84 6 J0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U0.34 J 0.34 J0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U1.30.4 UWapato-Toppenish 6484230 LSS 3.333.8 55 4.9 640.39 U 0.43 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.53 0.531.6 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U0.99 J1.6 UWapato-Toppenish 6484231 LSS 2.925.1 61 4 700.39 U 0.49 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.66 0.660.77 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U0.72 J0.77 UWapato-Toppenish 6484232 LSS 3.258.2 71 4.9 840.4 U 0.51 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.61 0.611.6 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U1.5 J1.6 UWapato-Toppenish 6484234 NPM 1.063 530.4 U560.4 U 0.63 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.61 0.610.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U10.4 UWapato-Toppenish 6484235 NPM 1.14.2 130 0.48 1350.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U0.42 0.420.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U0.60.4 UWapato-Toppenish 6484236 NPM 1.358.2 1600.4 U1680.4 U 1.7 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U1.2 1.20.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U0.830.4 UWapato-Toppenish 6484238 MWF 3.158.5 110 7.9 126 0.711 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U1.9 2.611.6 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U1.5 J1.6UWapato-Toppenish 6484239 MWF 2.97.4 110 7.1 125 0.591.1 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U1.7 2.290.77 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U1.40.77 UWapato-Toppenish 6484240 MWF 3.025.6 80 6 920.4 U 0.79 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U1 11.6 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U1 J1.6 U

4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Total Chlordane Methoxychlor Alpha-BHC

Total DDT Cis-Chlordane Cis-Nonachlor Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin

Oxychlordane Beta-BHC Delta-BHC

TransChlordane TransNonachlor Gamma-BHC (Lindane)Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study FindingsPage 207Table D-1 continued.ReachSample No.Species Lipids (%)Prosser6454105 CRP 4.3125 380 3.4 408 1 4.1 0.27 J 0.4 2.7 8.47 J0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJProsser6454106 CRP 7.1438 750 7 795 1.7 7.8 0.55 0.75 5 15.80.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U0.74 J0.39 UJProsser6454107 CRP 3.7121 360 2.6 384 1.2 6 0.31 J 0.58 3.7 11.8 J0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U0.65 J0.39 UJProsser6444234 SMB 0.622.5 32 0.93 350.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ1.40.39 UProsser6444235 SMB 0.663.3 43 2.3 490.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ1.10.38 UProsser6444236 SMB 0.33 17 0.46 200.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ0.460.4 UProsser6444238 LSS 1.7711 99 4.8 1150.39 U 0.77 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.73 0.730.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ2.2 J0.39 UJProsser6444239 LSS 2.0110 100 3.7 1140.39 U 0.73 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.71 0.710.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ2 J0.39 UJProsser6444240 LSS 2.4121 100 4.3 1250.39 U 1.4 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.61 0.610.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ2.6 J0.39 UJHorn Rapids6444230 CRP 7.9441 990 7 1038 1.611 UJ0.640.4 U5.8 8.041.6 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ1.6 J1.6 UJHorn Rapids6444231 CRP 9.1725 500 4.3 529 1.17.2 UJ0.570.39 U3.9 5.571.6 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ1.3 J1.6 UJHorn Rapids6444232 CRP 5.8317 380 4.2 J 401 J0.39 U 3.9 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U1.9 1.90.79 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ0.8 J0.79 UJHorn Rapids6444242 NPM 1.085.2 650.38 U700.38 U 0.96 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U0.73 0.730.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ1.4 J0.38 UJHorn Rapids6444243 NPM 1.414.8 600.39 U650.39 U 0.89 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.51 0.510.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ1.9 J0.39 UJHorn Rapids6444244 NPM 1.36.7 110 0.41 1170.4 U 0.58 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.45 0.450.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ4.7 J0.4 UJHorn Rapids6454108 SMB 1.373.8 78 1.3 830.39 U0.660.39U0.39 U0.46 1.120.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.540.39 U 0.39 U0.62 J0.39 UJHorn Rapids6454109 SMB 1.013.3 59 0.89 630.38 U0.570.38 U 0.38 U0.62 1.190.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U0.380.38 U 0.38 U1 J0.38 UJHorn Rapids6454110 SMB 0.951.9 37 1.1 400.39 U0.36 J0.39 U 0.39 U0.31 J 0.67 J0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U0.480.39 U 0.39 U0.76 J0.39 UJHorn Rapids6454111 LSS 2.795.3 57 2.4 65 0.22 J 0.620.4 U 0.4 U0.54 1.38 J0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U0.74 J0.4 UJHorn Rapids6454112 LSS 4.656.2 79 3.1 88 0.3 J 0.87 0.2 J0.4 U0.76 2.13 J0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U0.4 J 0.4 J 0.4 J 0.92 J0.4 UJHorn Rapids6454113 LSS 3.567.7 110 5.8 1240.39 U1.20.39 U 0.39 U0.8 20.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.53 0.39 U 0.39 U1.2 J0.39 UJ(--) Not analyzed forU = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported result.J = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical result is an estimate.UJ = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported estimated result.NJ = There is evidence that the analyte is present. The associated numerical result is an estimate.BLS = bridgelip suckerLSS = largescale suckerCRP = common carpMWF = mountain whitefishCTT = cutthroat troutNPM = northern pikeminnowKOK = kokaneeSMB = smallmouth bass Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin

Oxychlordane Beta-BHC Delta-BHC

TransChlordane TransNonachlor Gamma-BHC (Lindane)

Total Chlordane Methoxychlor Alpha-BHC

Total DDT Cis-Chlordane Cis-Nonachlor

4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 208 Table D-1 continued.

Reach Sample No. Species

Keechelus Lake 6394088 LSS 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394089 LSS 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394090 LSS 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394092 NPM 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394093 NPM 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394095 KOK 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.55 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394096 KOK 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.5 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394097 KOK 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.59 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394099 CTT 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 2 U Keechelus Lake 6394100 CTT 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 2 U Keechelus Lake 6394101 CTT 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 2 U Keechelus Lake 6394103 MWF 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ -- Keechelus Lake 6394104 MWF 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ --

Kachess Lake 6394080 LSS 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ -- Kachess Lake 6394081 LSS 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ -- Kachess Lake 6394082 LSS 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ -- Kachess Lake 6394084 NPM 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ -- Kachess Lake 6394085 NPM 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 UJ -- Kachess Lake 6394086 NPM 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ --

Cle Elum 6414068 MWF 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.25 J 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 1.9 U Cle Elum 6414069 MWF 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.51 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 1.9 U Cle Elum 6414070 MWF 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.45 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 2 U Cle Elum 6414072 BLS 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.24 J 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 1.9 UJ Cle Elum 6414073 BLS 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.24 J 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 2 U Cle Elum 6414074 BLS 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 4.9 U Cle Elum 6414076 NPM 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 4.9 U Cle Elum 6414077 NPM 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 U Cle Elum 6414078 NPM 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 4.9 U Yakima Canyon 6414050 MWF 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.26 J 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 2 U Yakima Canyon 6414051 MWF 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.46 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 2 U Yakima Canyon 6414052 MWF 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.53 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 2 U Yakima Canyon 6414057 NPM 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.28 J 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 2 U Yakima Canyon 6414058 NPM 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.23 J 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 1.9 U Yakima Canyon 6414059 NPM 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 6.5 NJ Yakima Canyon 6414061 BLS 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.47 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 50 NJ Yakima Canyon 6414062 BLS 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 1.9 U Yakima Canyon 6414063 BLS 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0. 21 J 0. 4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 2 U Wapato-Toppenish 6484230 LSS 1.6 U 1.6 U 0.39 U 1.6 U 0.39 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 4.8 U Wapato-Toppenish 6484231 LSS 0.77 UJ 0.77 UJ 0.39 U 0.77 U 0.39 U 0.77 U 0.77 U 0.77 UJ 0.39 U Wapato-Toppenish 6484232 LSS 1.6 U 1.6 U 0.4 U 1.6 U 0.4 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 5 U Wapato-Toppenish 6484234 NPM 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 5 U Wapato-Toppenish 6484235 NPM 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 4.9 U Wapato-Toppenish 6484236 NPM 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 10 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484238 MWF 1.6 U 1.6 U 0.39 U 1.6 U 0.57 UJ 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 11 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484239 MWF 0.77 UJ 0.77 UJ 0.38 U 0.77 U 0.57 UJ 1.6 0.77 U 0.77 UJ 10 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484240 MWF 1.6 UJ 1.6 U 0.4 U 1.6 U 0.4 U 1.6 U 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 11 JEndosulfan IEndosulfan IIEndosulfanSulfateToxapheneEndrin KetoneHeptachlorHeptachlorEpoxideHexachloro-benzeneEndrinAldehyde

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 209 Table D-1 continued.

Reach Sample No. Species

Prosser 6454105 CRP 0.46 J 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.52 0.39 UJ 0.21 J 0.39 UJ 55 J Prosser 6454106 CRP 0.35 J 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 1.3 0.39 UJ 0.22 J 0.53 J 63 J Prosser 6454107 CRP 0.35 J 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.3 J 0.82 J 49 J Prosser 6444234 SMB 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 4.9 U Prosser 6444235 SMB 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 4.7 U Prosser 6444236 SMB 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 4.9 U Prosser 6444238 LSS 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 10 J Prosser 6444239 LSS 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 4.9 U Prosser 6444240 LSS 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 11 J Horn Rapids 6444230 CRP 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 0.4 U 1.6 UJ 0.79 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.7 J 59 J Horn Rapids 6444231 CRP 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 0.39 U 1.6 UJ 0.91 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 2.1 J 25 J Horn Rapids 6444232 CRP 0.79 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.39 U 0.79 UJ 0.56 0.79 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.93 J 43 J Horn Rapids 6444242 NPM 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 10 J Horn Rapids 6444243 NPM 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 4.8 U Horn Rapids 6444244 NPM 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 14 J Horn Rapids 6454108 SMB 0.21 J 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.28 J 0.39 UJ 0.2 J 1.9 U Horn Rapids 6454109 SMB 0.37 J 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 U 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 1.9 U Horn Rapids 6454110 SMB 0.25 J 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 1.9 U Horn Rapids 6454111 LSS 0.33 J 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.23 J 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 9.1 J Horn Rapids 6454112 LSS 0.28 J 0.4 UJ 0.4 U 0.4 UJ 0.31 J 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 0.4 UJ 10 J Horn Rapids 6454113 LSS 0.3 J 0.39 UJ 0.39 U 0.39 UJ 0.24 J 0.33 J 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 12 J

(--) Not analyzed for U = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported result. J = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical result is an estimate. UJ = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported estimated result. NJ = There is evidence that the analyte is present. The associated numerical result is an estimate. BLS = bridgelip sucker LSS = largescale sucker CRP = common carp MWF = mountain whitefish CTT = cutthroat trout NPM = northern pikeminnow KOK = kokanee SMB = smallmouth bassEndrinAldehydeEndosulfan IEndosulfan IIEndosulfanSulfateToxapheneEndrin KetoneHeptachlorHeptachlorEpoxideHexachlorobenzene

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 210 Table D-2. PCBs Concentr ations in Yakima River Fish Fillet Samples, 2006 (ug/Kg, wet weight, parts per billion).

Reach Sample No. SpeciesLipids (%)

Keechelus Lake 6394088 LSS 2.08 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 7.4 J 9 J 7.5 UJ 1.9 U 16 J Keechelus Lake 6394089 LSS 1.56 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 8.1 J 7.8 J 6.6 UJ 1.9 U 16 J Keechelus Lake 6394090 LSS 1.6 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 3.6 J 4.4 J 3.8 UJ 1.9 U 8 J Keechelus Lake 6394092 NPM 1.13 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 6 J 8.9 J 7.9 UJ 2 U 15 J Keechelus Lake 6394093 NPM 1.09 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 8 J 11 J 9.3 UJ 1.9 U 19 J Keechelus Lake 6394095 KOK 2.54 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 11 J 4.6 J 5.6 UJ 1.9 U 16 J Keechelus Lake 6394096 KOK 2.78 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 9.2 J 3.7 J 4 UJ 2 U 13 J Keechelus Lake 6394097 KOK 3.33 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 4.9 UJ 12 J 5.8 J 3.9 UJ 2 U 18 J Keechelus Lake 6394099 CTT 1.86 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 5.8 2.3 -- 2 U 8 Keechelus Lake 6394100 CTT 1.36 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 3.8 1.4 J -- 2 U 5 J Keechelus Lake 6394101 CTT 1.09 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2.5 0.48 J -- 2 U 3 J Keechelus Lake 6394103 MWF 2.55 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2.6 UJ 2 U 2 U Keechelus Lake 6394104 MWF 2.96 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 6.3 J 3.3 J 3.9 UJ 2 U 10 J

Kachess Lake 6394080 LSS 0.69 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Kachess Lake 6394081 LSS 0.48 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Kachess Lake 6394082 LSS 0.55 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Kachess Lake 6394084 NPM 0.58 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 5 UJ 13 J 4.5 J 5 UJ 2 U 18 J Kachess Lake 6394085 NPM 0.86 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 4.6 UJ 19 J 6.6 J 5.5 UJ 1.8 U 26 J Kachess Lake 6394086 NPM 0.6 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 4.9 UJ 15 J 7.2 J 5.9 UJ 2 U 22 J

Cle Elum 6414068 MWF 4.24 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 12 1.9 U -- 1.9 U 12 Cle Elum 6414069 MWF 5.09 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 19 7.8 -- 1. 9 U 27 Cle Elum 6414070 MWF 4.42 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 14 5.7 -- 2 U 20 Cle Elum 6414072 BLS 4.03 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 7.6 3.6 -- 1.9 U 11 Cle Elum 6414073 BLS 2.8 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 6.3 1.5 J -- 2 U 8 J Cle Elum 6414074 BLS 2.51 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Cle Elum 6414076 NPM 1.98 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 4.8 J 2U 2U 2U 5 J Cle Elum 6414077 NPM 1.73 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 4.6 J 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 5 J Cle Elum 6414078 NPM 1.27 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 3.2 J 2.3 2U 2U 6 J Yakima Canyon 6414050 MWF 4.51 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 17 7.1 -- 2 U 24 Yakima Canyon 6414051 MWF 5.43 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 15 6 -- 2 U 21 Yakima Canyon 6414052 MWF 4.67 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 20 8.7 -- 2 U 29 Yakima Canyon 6414057 NPM 2.87 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 21 13 -- 2 U 34 Yakima Canyon 6414058 NPM 2.04 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 16 7.1 -- 1.9 U 23 Yakima Canyon 6414059 NPM 1.76 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 10 4.3

-- 1.2 J 16 J Yakima Canyon 6414061 BLS 4.72 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 15.0 7.0 -- 1.9 U 22 Yakima Canyon 6414062 BLS 2.16 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 2.4 1.9 U -- 1.9 U 2 Yakima Canyon 6414063 BLS 2.93 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 3.8 2 U -- 2 U 4 Wapato-Toppenish 6484230 LSS 3.33 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 3.9 J 7 3.1 4.8 UJ 1.9 U 14 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484231 LSS 2.92 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 3.9 J 7.9 4.1 4.8 UJ 1.9 U 16 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484232 LSS 3.25 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 4.6 J 8 3.4 5 UJ 2 U 16 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484234 NPM 1.06 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 6.9 5 5 UJ 2 U 12 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484235 NPM 1.1 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 4.9 UJ 5.6 4.1 J 4.9 UJ 2 U 10 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484236 NPM 1.35 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 3.6 J 12 J 12 J 5 UJ 2 U 28 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484238 MWF 3.15 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 6.2 J 17 J 7.3 9.9 UJ 2 U 31 JTotal PCBAroclorsAroclor 1242Aroclor 1248Aroclor 1254Aroclor 1262Aroclor 1268Aroclor 1016Aroclor 1221Aroclor 1232Aroclor 1260

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 211 Table D-2 continued.

Reach Sample No. SpeciesLipids (%)Total PCBAroclorsAroclor 1242Aroclor 1248Aroclor 1254Aroclor 1262Aroclor 1268Aroclor 1016Aroclor 1221Aroclor 1232Aroclor 1260

Wapato-Toppenish 6484239 MWF 2.9 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 6.2 J 16 J 7.9 J 9.6 UJ 1.9 U 30 J Wapato-Toppenish 6484240 MWF 3.02 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 5.3 J 11 J 5.2 J 5 UJ 2 U 22 J

Prosser 6454105 CRP 4.31 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 24 39 -- 1.9 U 63 Prosser 6454106 CRP 7.14 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 48 61 -- 2 U 109 Prosser 6454107 CRP 3.71 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 45 48 J -- 1.9 U 93 J Prosser 6444234 SMB 0.62 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 3.6 J 2.6 2U 2U 6 J Prosser 6444235 SMB 0.66 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U Prosser 6444236 SMB 0.3 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Prosser 6444238 LSS 1.77 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 4.9 J 7.1 2U 2U 12 J Prosser 6444239 LSS 2.01 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 11 J 7.2 9.8 UJ 2 U 18 J Prosser 6444240 LSS 2.41 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 12 J 7.2 9.7 UJ 1.9 U 19 J Horn Rapids 6444230 CRP 7.94 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 8.5 UJ 35 J 110 99 UJ 20 UJ 145 J Horn Rapids 6444231 CRP 9.17 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 7.2 UJ 25 J 68 J 58 UJ 1.9 UJ 93 Horn Rapids 6444232 CRP 5.83 4.9 UJ 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 12 J 42 59 UJ 2 U 54 J Horn Rapids 6444242 NPM 1.08 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 5.7 J 6.9 9.6 UJ 1.9 U 13 J Horn Rapids 6444243 NPM 1.41 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 4.9 J 6 9.7 UJ 1.9 U 11 J Horn Rapids 6444244 NPM 1.3 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 3.5 J 3.9 2 U 2 U 7 J Horn Rapids 6454108 SMB 1.37 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 9.8 6.2 J -- 1.9 U 16 J Horn Rapids 6454109 SMB 1.01 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 6.9 3.5 J -- 1.9 U 10 J Horn Rapids 6454110 SMB 0.95 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 7.7 1.9 U -- 1.9 U 8 Horn Rapids 6454111 LSS 2.79 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 7.4 4 J -- 2 U 11 J Horn Rapids 6454112 LSS 4.65 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 9.8 4.8 J -- 2 U 15 J Horn Rapids 6454113 LSS 3.56 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 11 9.5 J -- 1.9 U 21 J

(--) Not analyzed for U = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported result. J = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical result is an estimate. UJ = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported estimated result.

BLS = bridgelip sucker LSS = largescale sucker CRP = common carp MWF = mountain whitefish CTT = cutthroat trout NPM = northern pikeminnow KOK = kokanee SMB = smallmouth bassYakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study FindingsPage 212Table D-3. Dioxin and Furan Concentrations in Yakima River Fish Fillet Samples, 2006 (ng/Kg, wet weight; parts per trillion).ReachSample No.Species Lipids (%)Keechelus Lake 394091 LSS 1.9 0.030 UJ0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ0.206 J 1.08 0.132 1.8500.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJKeechelus Lake 394094 NPM 1.7 0.030 UJ0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ0.125 J0.230 UJ0.120 1.800.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJKeechelus Lake 394098 KOK 3.6 0.030 UJ 0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ0.104 J0.060 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.230 UJ0.159 1.460.040 UJ0.136 J 0.076 J0.060 UJKeechelus Lake 394102 CTT 2.2 0.030 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.100 UJ0.080 J0.060 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.230 UJ0.105 0.5070.040 UJ0.075 J 0.075 J0.060 UJKeechelus Lake 394105 MWF 3.4 0.030 UJ 0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ 0.085 UJ0.256 J 0.156 0.434 J0.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJKachess Lake 394083 LSS 1.8 0.030 UJ 0.050 UJ0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.230 UJ0.039 J 0.234 J0.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJKachess Lake 394087 NPM 1.4 0.030 UJ 0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ0.249 J0.230 UJ0.088 J 1.000.040 UJ0.239 J0.075 UJ 0.060 UJCle Elum 414071 MWF 5 0.030 UJ 0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ0.124 J0.060 UJ0.197 J0.230 UJ0.329 0.6820.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJCle Elum 414075 BLS 3.4 0.030 UJ 0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.230 UJ0.120 0.457 J0.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJCle Elum 414079 NPM 2.9 0.030 UJ 0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ0.189 J 0.290 J 0.144 0.5090.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJCanyon 414056 MWF 6.40.1460.050 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ0.190 J0.230 UJ0.364 0.7000.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJCanyon 414060 NPM 2.8 0.030 UJ 0.050 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.080 UJ 0.060 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.230 UJ0.156 0.7870.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJCanyon 414067 BLS 4.2 0.03 UJ 0.05 UJ 0.100 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.060 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.23 UJ0.036 J 0.226 J0.040 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.060 UJWapato-Toppenish 484233 LSS 4.7 0.03 UJ 0.05UJ 0.10 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.23 UJ0.270.05 UJ 0.042 UJ0.3040.075 UJ0.295Wapato-Toppenish 484241 MWF 4.5 0.03 UJ 0.05UJ 0.10 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.23 UJ0.2270.054 UJ 0.04 UJ0.145 J0.075 UJ0.063 JWapato-Toppenish 484237 NPM 1.70.242 J 0.267 J0.10 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.085 UJ0.969 0.9980.066 UJ 0.075 UJ0.121 J 0.195 J0.06 UJProsser 454114 CRP 5.1 0.03 UJ 0.05 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.784 UJ 1.44 UJ1.110.075 UJ 0.136 UJ0.214 J0.075 UJ0.495Prosser 444241 LSS 3.10.031 J0.05 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ0.142 J 0.728 0.6250.05 UJ 0.04 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.075 UJ0.144 JProsser 444237 SMB 1.5 0.03 UJ 0.05 UJ 0.10 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.085 UJ1.24 0.2510.05UJ 0.171UJ0.3660.075UJ0.153 JHorn Rapids444233 CRP 8.5 0.03 UJ 0.05 UJ 0.1 UJ0.567 0.087 J 1.29 2.23 1.680.094 UJ 0.157 UJ0.102 J0.075 UJ0.574Horn Rapids454116 LSS 6.1 0.03 UJ 0.05 UJ0.10 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.906 UJ0.2660.05 UJ 0.096 UJ0.112 J0.075 UJ0.159 JHorn Rapids444245 NPM 2.20.1010.05 UJ 0.10 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.085 UJ0.942 0.060.05 UJ 0.067 UJ0.4610.075 UJ0.211 JHorn Rapids454115 SMB 2.2 0.03 UJ 0.05 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.08 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.23 UJ0.1360.085 UJ 0.044 UJ0.174 J0.075 UJ0.121 JU = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported result.BLS = bridgelip sucker LSS = largescale suckerJ = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical result is an estimate. CRP = common carp MWF = mountain whitefishUJ = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported estimated result.CTT = cutthroat trout NPM = northern pikeminnowKOK = kokanee SMB = smallmouth bassTEQ = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalent based on toxicityequivalency factors from Van den Berget. al., 1998; Only detectedchemicals were used in calculation. 1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF

OCDD 2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDF

1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDF

2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8- PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDD 2,3,4,7,8- PeCDF

1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDF

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 213 Table D-3 continued.

Reach Sample No. Species TEQ Keechelus Lake 394091 LSS 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.309 J 0.358 Keechelus Lake 394094 NPM 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.205 Keechelus Lake 394098 KOK 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.194 Keechelus Lake 394102 CTT 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.069 Keechelus Lake 394105 MWF 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.083

Kachess Lake 394083 LSS 0.060 UJ 0.134 J 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.041 Kachess Lake 394087 NPM 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.158

Cle Elum 414071 MWF 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.133 Cle Elum 414075 BLS 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.058 Cle Elum 414079 NPM 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.113 Canyon 414056 MWF 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.140 Canyon 414060 NPM 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.095 Canyon 414067 BLS 0.060 UJ 0.070 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.200 UJ 0.026 Wapato-Toppenish 484233 LSS 0.06 UJ 0.07 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.20 UJ 0.091 Wapato-Toppenish 484241 MWF 0.06 UJ 0.07 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.20 UJ 0.049 Wapato-Toppenish 484237 NPM 0.06 UJ 0.158 J 0.085 UJ 0.20 UJ 0.309

Prosser 454114 CRP 0.06 UJ 0.19 J 0.085 UJ 0.971 0.319 Prosser 444241 LSS 0.06 UJ 0.07 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.167 Prosser 444237 SMB 0.06 UJ 0.279 0.085 UJ 0.20 UJ 0.246 Horn Rapids 444233 CRP 0.06 UJ 0.252 J 0.085 UJ 0.476 J 0.751 Horn Rapids 454116 LSS 0.06 UJ 0.07 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.581 0.121 Horn Rapids 444245 NPM 0.06 UJ 0.085 J 0.085 UJ 0.20 UJ 0.19 Horn Rapids 454115 SMB 0.06 UJ 0.07 UJ 0.085 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.056

U = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported result. J = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical result is an estimate. UJ = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported estimated result. TEQ = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivale nt based on toxicity equivalency factors from Van den Berg et al., 1998; Only detected chemicals were used in calculation.1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDFOCDF1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDFYakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study FindingsPage 214Table D-4. PBDE Concentrations inYakima River Fish Fillets, 2006 (ug/Kg, wet weight, parts per billion).ReachSample No.Species Lipids (%)Keechelus Lake 6394088LSS2.0850.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U0.80.4 U0.13 J 0.36 J0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.99 UKeechelus Lake 6394093NPM1.091 0.13 J0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U0.570.39 U 0.39 U0.28 J0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.98 UKeechelus Lake 6394099CTT1.8610.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U0.4 0.18 J0.4 U0.13 J 0.14 J0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.99 UKeechelus Lake 6394103 MWF 2.5510.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U0.9 0.310.4 U0.16 J 0.16 J0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.99 UKachess Lake 6394080LSS0.6950.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.19 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.97 UKachess Lake 6394084NPM0.581 0.16 J0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U0.330.39 U0.12 J 0.2 J0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.96 UYakima Canyon 6414050 MWF 4.5126 1.3 10.2 U18 5.50.39 U1.6 1.30.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.98 UYakima Canyon 6414057 NPM 2.8717 0.710.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U3.60.39 U0.22 J 1.20.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.99 UYakima Canyon 6414061 BLS 4.7218 0.510.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U2.40.39 U0.31 J 0.670.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.98 UWapato-Toppenish 6484230 LSS 3.3333 0.580.2 U 0.2 U0.2 J 4.20.4 U0.85 10.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 1 UWapato-Toppenish 6484234 NPM 1.0615 0.520.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U2.90.39 U0.32 J 0.690.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.98 UWapato-Toppenish 6484238 MWF 3.1594 2.7 2.60.19 U61.6 19.10.38 U5.5 3.30.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U3.3Wapato-Toppenish 6484239 MWF 2.995 2.5 30.2 U68.3 20.60.4 U6.8 4.20.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 1.3 UU = The analyte was not detected at or above the reported result.J = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical result is an estimate.BLS = bridgelip suckerCTT = cutthroat troutLSS = largescale suckerMWF = mountain whitefishNPM = northern pikeminnow PBDE - 138 PBDE - 209

PBDE - 153 PBDE - 154 PBDE - 183 PBDE - 184 PBDE - 191

PBDE - 71 PBDE - 99 PBDE - 100

PBDE - 47 PBDE - 49 PBDE - 66

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 215 

## Appendix E. Pesticides Analyzed in Surface Water and in Effluents from Fruit Packers and Vegetable Processors during the 2007-08 Yakima River Water Quality Study

4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDT Dieldrin cis-Chlordane trans-Chlordane cis-Nonachlor trans-Nonachlor Oxychlordane alpha-BHC beta-BHC gamma-BHC (Lindane) delta-BHC Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate Toxaphene Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Aldrin Endrin Endrin Ketone Endrin Aldehyde Methoxychlor Hexachlorobenzene

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 216 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 217 

## Appendix F. Deployment Dates and PRC Recovery for SPMDs

Table F-1. Deployment Dates and PRC Con centrations for May-June 2007 SPMDs. [Each sample consisted of five standard SPMD membranes. Each membrane was 4.50 grams/0.00495 L.]

Sample Number (723- ) Site Start End Deploy Time Final PRC Concentrations (1,000 ng/sample starting ) Date Time Date Time (days) PCB-4 PCB-29 4180 EASTON 5/8/07 8:00 6/5/07 8:00 28.0 228 496 4182 TOWNE DIV 5/8/07 9:30 6/5/07 9:00 28.0 272 839 4183 WILSON CR* 5/7/08 12:50 6/6/08 8:20 31.8 80 338 4184 ROZA DAM 5/8/07 11:45 6/5/07 10:45 27.9 280 820 4185 NACHES R 5/8/07 13:10 6/11/07 11:20 31.9 170 578 4186 MOXEE 5/8/07 14:20 6/5/07 11:55 27.9 108 517 4187 SUNNYSIDE 5/9/07 8:35 6/5/07 12:30 27.2 116 574 4188 GRANGER 5/9/07 9:35 6/5/07 13:15 27.2 114 534 4189 SULPHUR 5/9/07 10:45 6/5/07 13:50 27.1 149 608 4190 SULPHUR REP 5/9/07 10:45 6/5/07 13:50 27.1 114 736 4192 PROSSER 5/9/07 13:35 6/ 6/07 9:40 27.8 113 466 4193 PROSSER REP 5/9/07 13:35 6/6/07 9:40 27.8 177 619 4194 SPRING CR 5/9/07 12:10 6/5/07 15:25 27.1 161 584 4195 HORN RAPIDS 5/8/07 16:55 6/5/07 16:00 28.3 101 488 4181 FIELD BLNK (Easton) - - - - - - - - - - 4191 FIELD BLNK (Sulphur) - - - - - - - - - - *Original sample from 2007 lost in laborato ry accident; re-deployed in 2008.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 218 Table F-2. Deployment Dates and PRC Concen trations for October-November 2007 SPMDs. [Each sample consisted of five standard SPMD membranes. Each membrane was 4.50 grams/0.00495 L.]

Sample Number (748- ) Site Start End Deploy Time Final PRC Concentrations (1,000 ng/sample starting ) Date Time Date Time (days) PCB-4 PCB-29 4250 EASTON 10/30/07 7:55 11/26/07 8:15 27.0 355 603 4252 TOWNE DIV 10/30/07 9:20 11/26/07 9:30 27.0 356 644 4253 WILSON CR 10/30/07 10:30 11/26/07 10:30 27.0 277 560 4254 ROZA DAM 10/30/07 11:45 11/26/07 11:20 26.0 264 627 4255 NACHES R 10/30/07 13:15 11/26/07 12:25 26.0 328 665 4256 MOXEE 10/30/07 14:45 11/26/07 13:25 26.9 252 648 4257 SUNNYSIDE 10/30/07 14:00 11/26/07 14:10 27.0 198 518 4258 GRANGER 10/30/07 15:35 11/26/07 15:00 26.0 187 560 4259 SULPHUR 10/30/07 16:29 11/26/07 15:45 25.0 135 406 4261 PROSSER 10/31/07 8:30 11/27/07 8:35 27.0 225 431 4262 PROSSER REP 10/31/07 8:30 11/27/07 8:35 27.0 196 255 4263 SPRING CR 10/31/07 11:10 11/26/07 9:15 25.9 381 673 4264 HORN RAPIDS 10/31/07 10:00 11/27/07 10:25 27.0 193 443 4251 FIELD BLNK (Easton) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4260 FIELD BLNK (Sulphur) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 219 

## Appendix G. Ancillary Water Quality Data for SPMD Deployments

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 220 Table G-1. Ancillary Water Quality Da ta for Spring 2007 SPMD Deployments

Sample No. Field ID Collection Date Parameter Result Units 7194080 EASTON 5/8/2007 Conductivity 49.3 umhos/cm 7194080 EASTON 5/8/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1 U mg/L 7194080 EASTON 5/8/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1 U mg/L 7194080 EASTON 5/8/2007 Total Suspended Solids 2 mg/L 7194080 EASTON 5/8/2007 Turbidity 1.6 NTU 7214095 EASTON 5/22/2007 Conductivity 46 umhos/cm 7214095 EASTON 5/22/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1 U mg/L 7214095 EASTON 5/22/2007 Total Suspended Solids 1 mg/L 7214095 EASTON 5/22/2007 Turbidity 1.3 NTU 7234210 EASTON 6/5/2007 Conductivity 45 umhos/cm 7234210 EASTON 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1 U mg/L 7234210 EASTON 6/5/2007 Total Non-Volatile Suspended Solids 1 U mg/L 7234210 EASTON 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1 U mg/L 7234210 EASTON 6/5/2007 Total Suspended Solids 1 U mg/L 7234210 EASTON 6/5/2007 Turbidity 1.1 NTU 7194081 TOWNE DIV 5/8/2007 Conductivity 80.4 umhos/cm 7194081 TOWNE DIV 5/8/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.5 mg/L 7194081 TOWNE DIV 5/8/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.1 mg/L 7194081 TOWNE DIV 5/8/2007 Total Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 7194081 TOWNE DIV 5/8/2007 Turbidity 4.1 NTU 7234211 TOWNE DIV 6/5/2007 Conductivity 58 umhos/cm 7234211 TOWNE DIV 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1 U mg/L 7234211 TOWNE DIV 6/5/2007 Total Non-Volatile Suspended Solids 23 mg/L 7234211 TOWNE DIV 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.2 mg/L 7234211 TOWNE DIV 6/5/2007 Total Suspended Solids 27 mg/L 7234211 TOWNE DIV 6/5/2007 Turbidity 12 NTU 7194082 WILSON CR 5/8/2007 Conductivity 232 umhos/cm 7194082 WILSON CR 5/8/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 3.8 mg/L 7194082 WILSON CR 5/8/2007 Total Organic Carbon 4 mg/L 7194082 WILSON CR 5/8/2007 Total Suspended Solids 50 mg/L 7194082 WILSON CR 5/8/2007 Turbidity 20 NTU 7234212 WILSON CR 6/5/2007 Conductivity 253 umhos/cm 7234212 WILSON CR 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 3.8 mg/L 7234212 WILSON CR 6/5/2007 Total Non-Volatile Suspended Solids 46 mg/L 7234212 WILSON CR 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 4.5 mg/L 7234212 WILSON CR 6/5/2007 Total Suspended Solids 54 mg/L 7234212 WILSON CR 6/5/2007 Turbidity 18 NTU 7194083 ROZA DAM 5/8/2007 Conductivity 118 umhos/cm 7194083 ROZA DAM 5/8/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.8 mg/L 7194083 ROZA DAM 5/8/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.9 mg/L 7194083 ROZA DAM 5/8/2007 Total Suspended Solids 4 mg/L 7194083 ROZA DAM 5/8/2007 Turbidity 3.4 NTU 7214098 ROZA DAM 5/22/2007 Conductivity 97 umhos/cm 7214098 ROZA DAM 5/22/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.6 mg/L 7214098 ROZA DAM 5/22/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.9 mg/L 7214098 ROZA DAM 5/22/2007 Total Suspended Solids 13 mg/L

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 221 Sample No. Field ID Collection Date Parameter Result Units 7214098 ROZA DAM 5/22/2007 Turbidity 6.6 NTU 7234213 ROZA DAM 6/5/2007 Conductivity 78 umhos/cm 7234213 ROZA DAM 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.2 mg/L 7234213 ROZA DAM 6/5/2007 Total Non-Volatile Suspended Solids 20 mg/L 7234213 ROZA DAM 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.5 mg/L 7234213 ROZA DAM 6/5/2007 Total Suspended Solids 23 mg/L 7234213 ROZA DAM 6/5/2007 Turbidity 14 NTU 7194084 NACHES R. 5/8/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.3 mg/L 7194084 NACHES R. 5/8/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.7 mg/L 7234214 NACHES R. 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.2 mg/L 7234214 NACHES R. 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2 mg/L 7194085 MOXEE 5/8/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 2.4 mg/L 7194085 MOXEE 5/8/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.5 mg/L 7234215 MOXEE 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.8 mg/L 7234215 MOXEE 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.1 mg/L 7194086 SUNNYSIDE 5/9/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.6 mg/L 7194086 SUNNYSIDE 5/9/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.1 mg/L 7214104 SUNNYSIDE 5/22/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.7 mg/L 7214104 SUNNYSIDE 5/22/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.8 mg/L 7234216 SUNNYSIDE 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.2 mg/L 7234216 SUNNYSIDE 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.8 mg/L 7194087 GRANGER 5/9/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 2.7 mg/L 7194087 GRANGER 5/9/2007 Total Organic Carbon 3.5 mg/L 7234217 GRANGER 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 4.2 mg/L 7234217 GRANGER 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 4.9 mg/L 7194088 SULPHUR 5/9/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 2 mg/L 7194088 SULPHUR 5/9/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.9 mg/L 7234218 SULPHUR 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 2.3 mg/L 7234218 SULPHUR 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.9 mg/L 7194093 SULPHUR-REP 5/9/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 2.4 mg/L 7194093 SULPHUR-REP 5/9/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.5 mg/L 7194089 PROSS DM 5/9/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.8 mg/L 7194089 PROSS DM 5/9/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.6 mg/L 7194090 PROSSER-REP 5/9/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.6 mg/L 7224102 PROSS DM 5/30/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.4 mg/L 7224102 PROSS DM 5/30/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.6 mg/L 7234219 PROSS DM 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.5 mg/L 7234219 PROSS DM 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 1.9 mg/L 7194091 SPRING CR 5/9/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 2.8 mg/L 7194091 SPRING CR 5/9/2007 Total Organic Carbon 3.3 mg/L 7234220 SPRING CR 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 2.3 mg/L 7234220 SPRING CR 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.9 mg/L 7194092 HORNRAPID 5/8/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.9 mg/L 7194092 HORNRAPID 5/8/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.4 mg/L 7234221 HORNRAPID 6/5/2007 Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.5 mg/L 7234221 HORNRAPID 6/5/2007 Total Organic Carbon 2.1 mg/L U = not detected

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 222 Table G-2. Ancillary Water Quality Data for Fall 2007 SPMD Deployments.

Sample

No. Field ID Collection Date Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/L) Total Suspended

Solids (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Conductivity (umhos/cm)

7444205 EASTON 10/30/2007 1.0 U 1.0 U 2.0 2.1 60.5 7484230 EASTON 11/26/2007 1.0 U 1.0 U 2 1.3 59.4 7444206 TOWNE DIV 10/30/2007 1.0 U 1.0 U 1 0.5 82 7474205 TOWNE DIV 11/16/2007 1.0 U 1.0 U 1 U na na 7484231 TOWNE DIV 11/26/2007 1.0 U 1.0 U 2 0.7 83.1 7444207 WILSON CR 10/30/2007 2.1 1.8 21 3.4 369 7474206 WILSON 11/16/2007 2.0 U 1.7 8 na na 7484232 WILSON 11/26/2007 1.6 1.8 10 3.5 387 7444208 ROZA DAM 10/30/2007 1.4 2.0 U 30 11 152 7444209 ROZA-REP 10/30/2007 1.5 1.1 29 9.8 151 7484233 ROZA DAM 11/26/2007 1.0 U 1.0 U 5 1.4 142 7444210 NACHES R. 10/30/2007 1.5 1.0 U 7474208 NACHES R. 11/16/2007 1.0 U 1.0 U 7484235 NACHES R. 11/26/2007 1.0 U 1.0 U 7444211 MOXEE 10/30/2007 2.8 2.4 7474207 MOXEE 11/16/2007 2.6 J 2.4 7484236 MOXEE 11/26/2007 2.8 2.5 7444212 SUNNYSIDE 10/30/2007 1.5 1 7474214 SUNNYSIDE 11/16/2007 1.1 1.1 7484237 SUNNYSIDE 11/26/2007 1.1 1.0 U 7444213 GRANGER 10/30/2007 3.1 2.5 7474209 GRANGER 11/16/2007 2.1 1.9 7484238 GRANGER 11/26/2007 2.8 2.5 7444214 SULPHUR 10/31/2007 2.8 2.3 7474211 SULPHUR 11/16/2007 2.4 J 2.2 7484239 SULPHUR 11/26/2007 2.7 2.4 7444215 PROSSER DM 10/31/2007 1.4 1.1 7444216 PROSSER-REP 10/31/2007 1.4 1.1 7474212 PROSSER DM 11/16/2007 1.3 1.1 7484240 PROSSER DM 11/27/2007 1.3 1.2 7484241 PROSSER-REP 11/27/2007 1.2 1.1 7444217 SPRING CR. 10/31/2007 2.3 1.8 7474210 SPRING CR. 11/16/2007 2.3 2.0 7484242 SPRING CR. 11/27/2007 2.1 2.2 7444218 HORN RAPIDS 10/31/2007 1.5 1.2 7474213 HORN RAPIDS 11/16/2007 1.3 1.1 7484243 HORN RAPIDS 11/26/2007 1.2 1.3 U = not detected J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 223 

## Appendix H. SPMD Calculations

The loss rates of Performance Reference Compou nds (PRCs) are used to calibrate SPMDs for the effects of water velocity, te mperature, and biofouling (Huckins et al., 2006). Each of the SPMD membranes used in the present study was sp iked with the PRCs PCB-4 and PCB-29 prior to their being deployed in the field. PCB-4 and -29 are not present in si gnificant amounts in the environment. Water column concentrations of PCBs and toxaphene were calculated from the residues accumulated in the SPMD and PRC lo ss rates using the SPMD Water Concentration Calculator Excel spreadsheet version 5-1 developed by USGS ( http://137.227.231.90/Research/spmd.htm ). The PRC recovery data are in Appendix F.

SPMDs only take up the dissolved form of a chem ical. Total PCB and toxaphene concentrations were estimated from the dissolv ed residues using the equation C w-tot 

### = C w 

### (1 + TOC (K oc 

### /M w 

### )) where C w 

### is the dissolved concentration, K oc 

### is the organic carbon-wa ter equilibrium partition coefficient, and M w 

### is the mass of water (M eadows et al., 1998). K oc 

### was calculated from the K ow 

### values used to determine the dissolved concentrations in the SPMD Water Concentration Calculator spreadsheet and Ka rickhoff’s (1981) approximation K oc 

### = 0.411K ow 

### .

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 224 

## Appendix I. Pesticides Analyzed in Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluents and Urban Stormwater Runoff during the 2007-08 Yakima River Water Quality Study

Pesticides 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDT Dieldrin Chlordane (technical) alpha-BHC beta-BHC gamma-BHC (Lindane) delta-BHC Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate Toxaphene Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Aldrin Endrin Endrin Ketone Endrin Aldehyde Methoxychlor Hexachlorobenzene

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 209 individual PCB congeners (see Method 1668A - http://s ynetics.net/resources)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 225 

## Appendix J. Routine Monitoring Data for Surface Water, 2007-08

Collection Flow

Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

7144080 CHERRY 4/4/2007 198 0.063 U 0.081 0.063 U 7144081 WIPPLE 4/4/2007 23 0.065 U 0.08 0.065 U 7144082 HARRISON 4/4/2007 2,074 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 7144085 PARKER 4/4/2007 5,368 0.065 U 0.15 0.065 U 7144088 EUCLID 4/5/2007 6,452 0.067 0.34 0.08 7144090 KIONA 4/5/2007 6,331 0.096 0.4 0.1 7144083 NACHES 4/4/2007 3,188 0.089 0.23 0.064 U 7144084 MOXEE 4/4/2007 69 0.43 0.79 0.46 7144086 GRANGER 4/5/2007 24 0.17 1.9 0.36 7144091 GRANGER REP 4/5/2007 - - 0.17 1.9 0.36 7144087 SULFUR 4/5/2007 182 0.15 1 0.23 7144089 SPRING 4/5/2007 54 2.9 2 0.73 7144092 TRNSFR BLNK 4/5/2007 - - 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

7164080 CHERRY 4/18/2007 156 0.1 0.13 0.062 U 7164081 WIPPLE 4/18/2007 45 0.077 0.32 0.066 7164082 HARRISON 4/18/2007 880 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7164085 PARKER 4/18/2007 3,217 0.063 U 0.17 0.063 U 7164088 EUCLID 4/19/2007 4,044 0.063 U 0.2 0.063 U 7164090 KIONA 4/19/2007 4,257 0.064 U 0.26 0.074 7164083 NACHES 4/18/2007 2,868 0.12 0.28 0.063 U 7164084 MOXEE 4/18/2007 52 0.2 0.79 0.16 7164086 GRANGER 4/19/2007 25 0.25 2.1 0.35 7164087 SULFUR 4/19/2007 131 0.16 1.2 0.23 7164089 SPRING 4/19/2007 28 0.16 0.48 0.15

7184080 CHERRY 5/2/2007 459 0.59 J 0.62 J 0.066 J 7184081 WIPPLE 5/2/2007 104 0.2 0.64 0.063 U 7184082 HARRISON 5/2/2007 1,653 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7184085 PARKER 5/2/2007 3,197 0.062 U 0.11 0.062 U 7184088 EUCLID 5/3/2007 3,999 0.062 U 0.25 0.074 7184090 KIONA 5/3/2007 4,017 0.063 U 0.23 0.064 7184083 NACHES 5/2/2007 2,571 0.063 U 0.16 0.063 U 7184084 MOXEE 5/2/2007 99 0.305 1.1 0.24 7184091 MOXEE REP 5/2/2007 - - 0.24 1.1 0.23 7184086 GRANGER 5/3/2007 28 0.21 1.8 0.32 7184087 SULFUR 5/3/2007 222 0.14 1.1 0.23 7184089 SPRING 5/3/2007 18 0.12 0.53 0.14 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 226 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 4/4/2007 0.19 UJ 0.51 0.37 0.15 J 0.35 WIPPLE 4/4/2007 0.32 UJ 1.3 0.19 J 0.15 J 0.74 HARRISON 4/4/2007 0.12 UJ 0.89 0.43 0.24 0.45 J PARKER 4/4/2007 0.067 UJ 4.1 1.1 0.35 0.44 EUCLID 4/5/2007 0.32 U 8.2 1.8 0.63 1.1 KIONA 4/5/2007 0.13 UJ 16 1.6 0.68 1.6 J NACHES 4/4/2007 0.064 U 3.6 0.96 0.25 J 0.42 J MOXEE 4/4/2007 0.1 UJ 88 1.7 0.78 1.9 GRANGER 4/5/2007 0.17 UJ 18 3.7 1.9 2.6 GRANGER REP 4/5/2007 0.16 UJ 18 3.7 1.8 2.5 SULFUR 4/5/2007 0.16 UJ 46 10 4.8 4.6 SPRING 4/5/2007 0.27 UJ 82 3.3 1.4 5.1 TRNSFR BLNK 4/5/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 4/18/2007 0.28 J 0.12 J 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.09 J WIPPLE 4/18/2007 0.21 0.33 0.064 0.062 U 0.15 UJ HARRISON 4/18/2007 0.071 UJ 0.17 0.084 0.063 U 0.094 UJ PARKER 4/18/2007 0.072 UJ 2.4 0.21 0.092 0.3 UJ EUCLID 4/19/2007 0.063 UJ 4.4 1 J 0.33 J 0.52 UJ KIONA 4/19/2007 0.085 J 3.3 0.33 J 0.14 J 0.46 J NACHES 4/18/2007 0.063 U 2.7 0.17 J 0.063 J 0.33 UJ MOXEE 4/18/2007 0.061 U 5.9 0.53 0.28 0.68 GRANGER 4/19/2007 0.1 3.7 0.82 0.45 1.2 SULFUR 4/19/2007 0.23 5.5 0.5 0.28 J 1.3 SPRING 4/19/2007 0.22 14 0.15 J 0.063 UJ 2.2 J

CHERRY 5/2/2007 1.6 4.4 0.24 0.11 0.27 J WIPPLE 5/2/2007 0.62 UJ 0.31 0.17 UJ 0.11 0.27 J HARRISON 5/2/2007 0.13 UJ 0.25 0.15 UJ 0.063 U 0.14 J PARKER 5/2/2007 0.1 UJ 0.74 0.24 0.062 U 0.14 J EUCLID 5/3/2007 0.078 UJ 1.3 0.38 0.089 J 0.48 J KIONA 5/3/2007 0.067 UJ 1.5 0.27 0.15 0.54 J NACHES 5/2/2007 0.063 U 0.61 0.22 UJ 0.13 J 0.21 J MOXEE 5/2/2007 0.1265 U 2 J 2 1.05 1.5 MOXEE REP 5/2/2007 0.063 U 2.1 J 2 1.1 1.6 GRANGER 5/3/2007 0.13 UJ 1.5 0.31 0.19 0.69 J SULFUR 5/3/2007 0.23 UJ 3.1 1.4 0.34 0.73 SPRING 5/3/2007 0.14 J 4.3 0.71 0.18 1.4 Chlorpyrifos Dieldrin Endosulfan Sulfate Endosulfan II Endosulfan I

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 227 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 4/4/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 4/4/2007 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ HARRISON 4/4/2007 3.3 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U PARKER 4/4/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U EUCLID 4/5/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U KIONA 4/5/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 4/4/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U MOXEE 4/4/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANGER 4/5/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANGER REP 4/5/2007 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SULFUR 4/5/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.068 U J 0.065 U 0.065 U SPRING 4/5/2007 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U TRNSFR BLNK 4/5/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 4/18/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U WIPPLE 4/18/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 4/18/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 4/18/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 4/19/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 4/19/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U NACHES 4/18/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 4/18/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER 4/19/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 4/19/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 4/19/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 5/2/2007 3.1 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 U J 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ WIPPLE 5/2/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 5/2/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 5/2/2007 3.1 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U EUCLID 5/3/2007 3.1 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 5/3/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 5/2/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 5/2/2007 11 J 0.0625 U 0.0765 U 0.0625 U 0.0625 U 0.0625 U MOXEE REP 5/2/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 5/3/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 5/3/2007 3.1 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SPRING 5/3/2007 3.2 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U Toxaphene CisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor Oxychlordane

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 228 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 4/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.39 UJ 0.083 UJ WIPPLE 4/4/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.29 UJ 0.065 U HARRISON 4/4/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.12 UJ 0.066 U PARKER 4/4/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.074 UJ 0.065 U EUCLID 4/5/2007 0.064 U 0.087 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.32 U 0.32 U KIONA 4/5/2007 0.063 U 0.07 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.29 UJ 0.063 U NACHES 4/4/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U MOXEE 4/4/2007 0.064 U 0.085 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.18 UJ 0.064 U GRANGER 4/5/2007 0.064 U 0.101 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.20 UJ 0.064 U GRANGER REP 4/5/2007 0.065 U 0.11 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.17 UJ 0.065 U SULFUR 4/5/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.21 UJ 0.065 U SPRING 4/5/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.44 UJ 0.065 U TRNSFR BLNK 4/5/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 4/18/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ WIPPLE 4/18/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 4/18/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 4/18/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 4/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ KIONA 4/19/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ NACHES 4/18/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 4/18/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER 4/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 4/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.1 J 0.063 U SPRING 4/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ

CHERRY 5/2/2007 0.062 U J 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.13 UJ WIPPLE 5/2/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U HARRISON 5/2/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U PARKER 5/2/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U EUCLID 5/3/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U KIONA 5/3/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U NACHES 5/2/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 5/2/2007 0.0625 U 0.063 U 0.0625 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U MOXEE REP 5/2/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U GRANGER 5/3/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U SULFUR 5/3/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U SPRING 5/3/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 UAlphaBHC Lindane Aldrin Endrin Beta-BHC Delta-BHC

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 229 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 4/4/2007 0.37 UJ 0.096 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 4/4/2007 1.6 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U HARRISON 4/4/2007 0.16 UJ 0.079 UJ 0.066 U 0.087 UJ 0.066 U PARKER 4/4/2007 0.11 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.074 UJ 0.065 U EUCLID 4/5/2007 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.064 U 0.32 U 0.064 U KIONA 4/5/2007 0.34 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.16 U 0.063 U NACHES 4/4/2007 0.42 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U MOXEE 4/4/2007 0.42 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.12 0.064 U GRANGER 4/5/2007 0.23 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.075 UJ 0.064 U GRANGER REP 4/5/2007 0.17 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.071 UJ 0.065 U SULFUR 4/5/2007 0.23 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.13 UJ 0.065 U SPRING 4/5/2007 0.1 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.18 UJ 0.065 U TRNSFR BLNK 4/5/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 4/18/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U WIPPLE 4/18/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 4/18/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.065 0.063 U PARKER 4/18/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 4/19/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.1 J 0.063 U KIONA 4/19/2007 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U NACHES 4/18/2007 0.063 U 0.25 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 4/18/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER 4/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.18 UJ 0.063 U SULFUR 4/19/2007 0.089 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 0.063 U SPRING 4/19/2007 0.15 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.15 UJ 0.063 U

CHERRY 5/2/2007 0.42 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.062 UJ WIPPLE 5/2/2007 0.084 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 5/2/2007 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.13 UJ 0.063 U PARKER 5/2/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U EUCLID 5/3/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.077 UJ 0.062 U KIONA 5/3/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.18 UJ 0.063 U NACHES 5/2/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 UJ 0.063 U MOXEE 5/2/2007 0.265 UJ 0.0625 U 0.0625 U 0.125 0.0625 U MOXEE REP 5/2/2007 0.17 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.13 0.063 U GRANGER 5/3/2007 0.094 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.063 U SULFUR 5/3/2007 0.081 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.11 UJ 0.061 U SPRING 5/3/2007 0.082 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.084 UJ 0.063 U Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 230 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/ L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) CHERRY 4/4/2007 0.13 UJ 18 na 7.8 249 WIPPLE 4/4/2007 1.2 UJ 5 na 2.1 490 HARRISON 4/4/2007 0.43 UJ 16 13 7.8 114 PARKER 4/4/2007 0.065 UJ 15 12 9.4 102 EUCLID 4/5/2007 0.32 UJ 58 53 24 133 KIONA 4/5/2007 0.4 UJ 36 33 20 142 NACHES 4/4/2007 0.52 UJ 12 10 11 74.4 MOXEE 4/4/2007 0.064 UJ 85 na 17 199 GRANGER 4/5/2007 0.064 UJ 109 na 28 453 GRANGER REP 4/5/2007 0.065 UJ 96 26 454 SULFUR 4/5/2007 0.065 UJ 73 na 17 244 SPRING 4/5/2007 0.065 UJ 40 na 22 206 TRNSFR BLNK 4/5/2007 0.063 UJ na na na na

CHERRY 4/18/2007 0.062 UJ 23 na 11 252 WIPPLE 4/18/2007 0.062 UJ 31 na 15 252 HARRISON 4/18/2007 0.24 UJ 5 3 3.6 120 PARKER 4/18/2007 0.14 UJ 9 7 6.5 102 EUCLID 4/19/2007 0.19 UJ 19 17 8.5 145 KIONA 4/19/2007 0.064 UJ 16 14 8.8 153 NACHES 4/18/2007 0.37 UJ 8 8 7.7 74.4 MOXEE 4/18/2007 0.13 UJ 122 na 19 169 GRANGER 4/19/2007 0.063 UJ 180 na 42 395 SULFUR 4/19/2007 0.22 UJ 39 na 13 355 SPRING 4/19/2007 0.063 UJ 13 na 5.4 254

CHERRY 5/2/2007 0.062 U 121 107 36 301 WIPPLE 5/2/2007 0.063 U 140 125 29 261 HARRISON 5/2/2007 0.063 U 12 J 8 3.7 120 PARKER 5/2/2007 0.062 U 13 10 3.7 J 107 EUCLID 5/3/2007 0.062 U 18 15 7.6 148 KIONA 5/3/2007 0.063 U 14 11 5.9 155 NACHES 5/2/2007 0.063 U 7 6 4.4 71.2 MOXEE 5/2/2007 0.106 UJ 108 99.5 18 193 MOXEE REP 5/2/2007 0.15 UJ 105 95 21 193 GRANGER 5/3/2007 0.063 U 170 160 37 397 SULFUR 5/3/2007 0.061 U 38 34 13 290 SPRING 5/3/2007 0.063 U 16 13 6.2 283 Conductivity Turbidity TNVSS TSS Methoxychlor

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 231 Collection Flow Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

7214080 CHERRY 5/23/2007 541 0.1 0.24 0.063 U 7214081 WIPPLE 5/23/2007 156 0.13 0.67 0.063 U 7214082 HARRISON 5/23/2007 2,771 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7214085 PARKER 5/23/2007 4,566 0.063 U 0.14 0.063 U 7214088 EUCLID 5/24/2007 4,865 0.066 0.33 0.064 U 7214090 KIONA 5/24/2007 5,267 0.062 U 0.38 0.075 7214083 NACHES 5/23/2007 3,191 0.063 U 0.12 0.063 U 7214084 MOXEE 5/23/2007 69 0.39 1.8 0.32 7214086 GRANGER 5/23/2007 29 0.89 4.1 0.42 7214087 SULFUR 5/24/2007 297 0.25 1.9 0.22 7214089 SPRING 5/24/2007 35 0.12 J 1.5 J 0.28 J

7234080 CHERRY 6/6/2007 459 0.063 U 0.23 0.063 U 7234081 WIPPLE 6/6/2007 144 0.25 J 0.98 0.063 U 7234082 HARRISON 6/6/2007 2,942 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7234085 PARKER 6/6/2007 6,950 0.061 U 0.15 0.061 U 7234088 EUCLID 6/7/2007 6,516 0.2 J 0.51 0.062 U 7234090 KIONA 6/7/2007 6,961 0.44 J 0.55 0.063 U 7234083 NACHES 6/6/2007 4,728 0.063 U 0.14 J 0.063 U 7234084 MOXEE 6/6/2007 82 0.53 J 1.8 0.21 J 7234086 GRANGER 6/7/2007 34 1.7 J 3 0.22 J 7234087 SULFUR 6/7/2007 492 0.3 J 1.9 J 0.14 J 7234089 SPRING 6/7/2007 114 0.52 J 1.9 J 0.23 J 7234091 SPRING REP 6/7/2007 - - 0.7 J 1.6 0.26 J

7264080 CHERRY 6/27/2007 411 0.063 U 0.21 0.063 U 7264081 WIPPLE 6/27/2007 183 0.12 0.33 0.063 U 7264082 HARRISON 6/27/2007 1,364 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 7264085 PARKER 6/27/2007 266 0.061 U 0.097 0.061 U 7264088 EUCLID 6/28/2007 939 0.064 0.35 0.079 7264090 KIONA 6/28/2007 929 0.063 U 0.16 0.063 U 7264083 NACHES 6/27/2007 744 0.065 U 0.13 0.065 U 7264084 MOXEE 6/27/2007 55 0.23 1.3 0.23 7264086 GRANGER 6/28/2007 50 0.88 3.4 0.25 7264087 SULFUR 6/28/2007 254 0.26 1.5 0.16 7264089 SPRING 6/28/2007 51 0.15 0.66 0.19 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 232 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 5/23/2007 0.54 0.42 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.23 WIPPLE 5/23/2007 0.91 0.15 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.31 HARRISON 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.097 UJ PARKER 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.17 J 0.22 0.095 0.32 J EUCLID 5/24/2007 0.073 UJ 1.3 0.15 0.13 0.76 J KIONA 5/24/2007 0.092 UJ 1.4 0.2 0.11 0.63 J NACHES 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.22 J MOXEE 5/23/2007 0.078 UJ 0.98 0.19 0.3 1 GRANGER 5/23/2007 0.28 1.1 J 1 0.63 1.8 SULFUR 5/24/2007 0.37 1.2 0.12 0.26 0.88 SPRING 5/24/2007 0.23 2.4 0.16 0.29 2.7

CHERRY 6/6/2007 0.87 0.19 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.18 J WIPPLE 6/6/2007 0.66 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.22 J HARRISON 6/6/2007 0.089 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.093 J PARKER 6/6/2007 0.075 UJ 0.061 U 0.075 UJ 0.062 0.22 UJ EUCLID 6/7/2007 0.082 UJ 0.062 U 0.085 UJ 0.062 U 0.19 J KIONA 6/7/2007 0.1 UJ 0.42 0.15 UJ 0.082 J 0.45 J NACHES 6/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 J MOXEE 6/6/2007 0.092 UJ 0.5 0.16 UJ 0.28 0.82 J GRANGER 6/7/2007 0.38 3.9 0.063 U 0.11 0.45 J SULFUR 6/7/2007 0.28 0.44 J 0.066 UJ 0.19 0.58 J SPRING 6/7/2007 0.31 1.1 0.35 J 0.27 J 1.6 J SPRING REP 6/7/2007 0.34 1.3 0.41 J 0.34 J 1.7 J

CHERRY 6/27/2007 0.31 J 13 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.15 UJ WIPPLE 6/27/2007 0.3 J 0.12 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.17 UJ HARRISON 6/27/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.12 UJ PARKER 6/27/2007 0.061 U 0.13 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.13 UJ EUCLID 6/28/2007 0.19 UJ 0.63 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.39 KIONA 6/28/2007 0.14 UJ 0.43 J 0.063 U 0.078 0.44 NACHES 6/27/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.084 UJ MOXEE 6/27/2007 0.11 UJ 0.43 0.41 0.62 1.2 GRANGER 6/28/2007 0.47 J 0.27 J 0.11 J 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ SULFUR 6/28/2007 0.41 J 0.28 0.082 J 0.13 J 0.46 SPRING 6/28/2007 0.15 UJ 0.82 0.093 J 0.1 0.91 Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate Chlorpyrifos

U = U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 233 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 5/23/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 5/23/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 5/23/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 5/23/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 5/24/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U KIONA 5/24/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U NACHES 5/23/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 5/23/2007 3.5 E 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 5/23/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.066 UJ SULFUR 5/24/2007 4.3 E 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SPRING 5/24/2007 3.2 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ

CHERRY 6/6/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 6/6/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.084 0.063 U HARRISON 6/6/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 6/6/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 6/7/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 6/7/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 6/6/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 6/6/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 6/7/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 6/7/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U SPRING 6/7/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING REP 6/7/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.1 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 6/27/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 6/27/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 6/27/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U PARKER 6/27/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 6/28/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 6/28/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 6/27/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U MOXEE 6/27/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 6/28/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SULFUR 6/28/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SPRING 6/28/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UOxychlordaneTransNonachlorTransChlordaneCisNonachlorCisChlordane Toxaphene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 234 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.088 UJ 0.063 U WIPPLE 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 5/24/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U KIONA 5/24/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U NACHES 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 5/24/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SPRING 5/24/2007 0.063 UJ 0.087 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.095 UJ

CHERRY 6/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 6/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 6/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 6/6/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 6/7/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 6/7/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 6/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 6/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.097 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 6/7/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 6/7/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.069 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U SPRING 6/7/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING REP 6/7/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 6/27/2007 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 6/27/2007 0.063 U 0.14 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 6/27/2007 0.062 U 0.15 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U PARKER 6/27/2007 0.061 U 0.14 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 6/28/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 6/28/2007 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 6/27/2007 0.065 U 0.1 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.065 U MOXEE 6/27/2007 0.063 U 0.12 UJ 0.063 U 0.071 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 6/28/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ SULFUR 6/28/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SPRING 6/28/2007 0.063 U 0.14 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UAlphaBHC Lindane Aldrin Endrin Beta-BHC Delta-BHC

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 235 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 5/23/2007 0.067 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 0.063 U EUCLID 5/24/2007 0.16 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.064 U 0.072 UJ 0.064 U KIONA 5/24/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U NACHES 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.12 0.063 U MOXEE 5/23/2007 0.092 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 5/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.077 UJ 0.063 U SULFUR 5/24/2007 0.073 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.077 UJ 0.062 U SPRING 5/24/2007 0.11 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.12 J

CHERRY 6/6/2007 0.12 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 6/6/2007 0.076 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.066 0.063 U HARRISON 6/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 6/6/2007 0.13 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 6/7/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 6/7/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.063 U NACHES 6/6/2007 0.13 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 6/6/2007 0.48 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 6/7/2007 0.1 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.17 0.063 U SULFUR 6/7/2007 0.083 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 1.3 0.064 U SPRING 6/7/2007 0.077 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.1 UJ 0.063 U SPRING REP 6/7/2007 0.14 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.063 U

CHERRY 6/27/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.072 UJ WIPPLE 6/27/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 6/27/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U PARKER 6/27/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 6/28/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 6/28/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 6/27/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ MOXEE 6/27/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 6/28/2007 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.12 J 0.065 U SULFUR 6/28/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SPRING 6/28/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 236 Collection Methoxychlor Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) CHERRY 5/23/2007 0.063 UJ 58 50 17 258 WIPPLE 5/23/2007 0.077 UJ 52 45 19 228 HARRISON 5/23/2007 0.16 UJ 16 13 5.5 98 PARKER 5/23/2007 0.063 UJ 16 14 5.7 90 EUCLID 5/24/2007 0.064 UJ 38 34 15 126 KIONA 5/24/2007 0.062 UJ 43 38 16 135 NACHES 5/23/2007 0.063 UJ 8 7 6.6 64 MOXEE 5/23/2007 0.18 UJ 125 117 23 221 GRANGER 5/23/2007 0.063 UJ 133 123 39 392 SULFUR 5/24/2007 0.062 UJ 73 66 18 241 SPRING 5/24/2007 0.063 UJ 218 195 50 299

CHERRY 6/6/2007 0.063 U 67 58 22 271 WIPPLE 6/6/2007 0.063 U 63 56 24 262 HARRISON 6/6/2007 0.084 UJ 24 20 12 87 PARKER 6/6/2007 0.061 U 27 23 17 77 EUCLID 6/7/2007 0.062 U 67 61 27 105 KIONA 6/7/2007 0.063 U 76 68 32 109 NACHES 6/6/2007 0.063 U 29 26 17 56 MOXEE 6/6/2007 0.19 UJ 139 129 33 177 GRANGER 6/7/2007 0.063 U 132 122 60 331 SULFUR 6/7/2007 0.064 U 80 74 25 181 SPRING 6/7/2007 0.063 U 92 83 34 153 SPRING REP 6/7/2007 0.063 U 100 90 32 153

CHERRY 6/27/2007 0.1 UJ 44 38 13 244 WIPPLE 6/27/2007 0.063 U 35 31 14 164 HARRISON 6/27/2007 0.062 U 9 7 4.2 90.2 PARKER 6/27/2007 0.061 U 7 6 2.9 94.9 EUCLID 6/28/2007 0.062 U 16 13 5.3 236 KIONA 6/28/2007 0.22 UJ 14 11 4.2 264 NACHES 6/27/2007 0.065 U 4 3 3.8 72.2 MOXEE 6/27/2007 0.063 U 61 57 16 212 GRANGER 6/28/2007 0.17 UJ 33 30 17 374 SULFUR 6/28/2007 0.065 U 26 24 9.4 287 SPRING 6/28/2007 0.063 U 22 20 6 230 Conductivity TNVSS TSS Turbidity

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 237 Collection Flow Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

7284080 CHERRY 7/11/2007 142 0.3 0.33 0.063 U 7284081 WIPPLE 7/11/2007 61 0.27 0.5 0.061 U 7284082 HARRISON 7/11/2007 2,211 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7284085 PARKER 7/11/2007 384 0.066 U 0.096 0.066 U 7284088 EUCLID 7/12/2007 875 0.19 UJ 0.4 0.11 UJ 7284091 EUCLID REP 7/12/2007 - - 0.14 UJ 0.46 0.11 UJ 7284090 KIONA 7/12/2007 846 0.063 U 0.16 0.067 UJ 7284083 NACHES 7/11/2007 364 0.061 UJ 0.14 0.063 UJ 7284084 MOXEE 7/11/2007 38 0.21 UJ 0.76 0.19 7284086 GRANGER 7/12/2007 42 0.98 J 2.7 J 0.22 J 7284087 SULFUR 7/12/2007 181 0.27 1.1 0.17 7284089 SPRING 7/12/2007 22 0.065 U 0.37 0.13 UJ 7284092 TRNSFR BLNK 7/11/2007 - - 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U

7304082 HARRISON 7/24/2007 2,138 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7304085 PARKER 7/24/2007 384 0.062 U 0.074 J 0.062 U 7304088 EUCLID 7/24/2007 978 0.095 0.35 0.093 7304090 KIONA 7/26/2007 1,101 0.063 U 0.14 0.063 U 7304083 NACHES 7/24/2007 299 0.063 U 0.17 0.063 U 7304084 MOXEE 7/24/2007 43 0.31 0.98 0.24 7304086 GRANGER 7/24/2007 40 0.69 2.2 0.23 7304087 SULFUR 7/24/2007 235 0.24 0.96 0.18 7304089 SPRING 7/24/2007 24 0.063 U 0.38 0.15

7324080 CHERRY 8/8/2007 249 0.44 0.26 0.061 U 7324081 WIPPLE 8/8/2007 98 0.099 0.54 0.062 U 7324082 HARRISON 8/8/2007 2,242 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7324085 PARKER 8/9/2007 500 0.066 U 0.083 0.066 U 7324088 EUCLID 8/9/2007 1,007 0.11 0.44 0.11 7324090 KIONA 8/9/2007 1,681 0.062 U 0.14 0.062 U 7324083 NACHES 8/8/2007 334 0.07 0.18 0.068 7324084 MOXEE 8/8/2007 45 0.24 1 0.2 7324086 GRANGER 8/9/2007 49 0.66 2.4 0.27 7324091 SULFUR REP 8/9/2007 288 0.35 1.2 0.15 7324089 SPRING 8/9/2007 43 0.074 0.4 0.15 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 238 Collection Dieldrin Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 7/11/2007 2.1 0.011 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.21 WIPPLE 7/11/2007 1.5 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.16 HARRISON 7/11/2007 0.067 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 PARKER 7/11/2007 0.087 UJ 0.089 J 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.19 EUCLID 7/12/2007 0.25 J 1.1 0.17 J 0.095 J 0.72 EUCLID REP 7/12/2007 0.25 J 1.4 0.21 J 0.14 0.68 KIONA 7/12/2007 0.15 J 0.49 0.074 J 0.063 U 0.61 NACHES 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.074 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.11 MOXEE 7/11/2007 0.063 U 0.31 0.063 U 0.18 0.44 GRANGER 7/12/2007 0.65 J 0.22 J 0.3 J 0.19 J 0.49 J SULFUR 7/12/2007 0.92 J 0.61 J 0.3 J 0.28 0.78 SPRING 7/12/2007 0.17 J 0.64 0.27 J 0.17 J 0.89 TRNSFR BLNK 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U

HARRISON 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.28 PARKER 7/24/2007 0.062 U 0.11 J 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.2 J EUCLID 7/24/2007 0.22 J 20 0.12 UJ 0.096 0.76 KIONA 7/26/2007 0.22 J 13 0.16 UJ 0.12 1.2 NACHES 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.07 UJ 0.063 U 0.15 J MOXEE 7/24/2007 0.067 UJ 0.24 0.093 UJ 0.1 J 0.58 GRANGER 7/24/2007 0.38 0.56 J 0.15 UJ 0.083 J 0.6 SULFUR 7/24/2007 0.59 0.6 J 0.31 UJ 0.14 0.78 SPRING 7/24/2007 0.19 J 0.79 J 0.33 UJ 0.26 J 2.8

CHERRY 8/8/2007 1 0.23 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.18 WIPPLE 8/8/2007 0.68 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.15 J HARRISON 8/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.08 0.063 U 0.13 J PARKER 8/9/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.2 0.073 0.29 EUCLID 8/9/2007 0.29 6.2 0.35 0.18 0.76 KIONA 8/9/2007 0.15 J 2.5 0.094 J 0.08 J 0.82 NACHES 8/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.37 0.063 U 0.18 J MOXEE 8/8/2007 0.068 J 0.063 U 0.21 J 0.15 J 0.66 GRANGER 8/9/2007 0.52 0.88 0.44 J 0.14 J 0.93 SULFUR REP 8/9/2007 0.6 1.2 0.65 0.29 0.95 SPRING 8/9/2007 0.17 J 3.5 0.33 0.25 J 2.7 Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 239 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 7/11/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 7/11/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.11 UJ HARRISON 7/11/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 7/11/2007 3.3 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.12 UJ EUCLID 7/12/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.085 UJ 0.063 U 0.16 UJ EUCLID REP 7/12/2007 3.3 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U KIONA 7/12/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 7/11/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U MOXEE 7/11/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 7/12/2007 3 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.13 UJ SULFUR 7/12/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.094 UJ SPRING 7/12/2007 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.11 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.065 U 0.061 U

HARRISON 7/24/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 7/24/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U EUCLID 7/24/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U KIONA 7/26/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 7/24/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 7/24/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER 7/24/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 7/24/2007 4.1 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 7/24/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 8/8/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U WIPPLE 8/8/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 8/8/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 8/9/2007 3.3 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U EUCLID 8/9/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 8/9/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U NACHES 8/8/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 8/8/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 8/9/2007 3.3 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U SULFUR REP 8/9/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SPRING 8/9/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UCisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor Oxychlordane Toxaphene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 240 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 7/11/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIPPLE 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.092 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U HARRISON 7/11/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 7/11/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U EUCLID 7/12/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.19 UJ EUCLID REP 7/12/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.15 UJ KIONA 7/12/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.075 UJ NACHES 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U MOXEE 7/11/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.075 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 7/12/2007 0.061 U J 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.16 UJ SULFUR 7/12/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.22 UJ SPRING 7/12/2007 0.065 U 0.12 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U TRNSFR BLNK 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U

HARRISON 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 7/24/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U EUCLID 7/24/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.085 UJ 0.065 U KIONA 7/26/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.065 UJ 0.11 UJ NACHES 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 7/24/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.076 UJ GRANGER 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 8/8/2007 0.069 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U WIPPLE 8/8/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 8/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 8/9/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U EUCLID 8/9/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 8/9/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.12 NACHES 8/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 8/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 8/9/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U SULFUR REP 8/9/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SPRING 8/9/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UAlphaBHC Beta-BHC DeltaBHC Lindane Aldrin Endrin

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 241 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 7/11/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.064 UJ 0.063 U WIPPLE 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U HARRISON 7/11/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 7/11/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U EUCLID 7/12/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID REP 7/12/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U KIONA 7/12/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U MOXEE 7/11/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 7/12/2007 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.15 J 0.061 UJ SULFUR 7/12/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.16 J 0.064 U SPRING 7/12/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U TRNSFR BLNK 7/11/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U

HARRISON 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 7/24/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U EUCLID 7/24/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U KIONA 7/26/2007 0.063 U 0.23 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.07 UJ 0.063 U MOXEE 7/24/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 UJ 0.063 U SULFUR 7/24/2007 0.073 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 7/24/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

CHERRY 8/8/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U WIPPLE 8/8/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 8/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 8/9/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U EUCLID 8/9/2007 0.069 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA 8/9/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U NACHES 8/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 8/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 8/9/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.12 0.066 U SULFUR REP 8/9/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.07 J 0.062 U SPRING 8/9/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 242 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) CHERRY 7/11/2007 0.063 U 37 32 16 389 WIPPLE 7/11/2007 0.28 UJ 34 31 11 392 HARRISON 7/11/2007 0.063 U 17 14 6.7 77.4 PARKER 7/11/2007 0.066 U 12 10 5.2 88.7 EUCLID 7/12/2007 0.063 U 11 8 5.8 252 EUCLID REP 7/12/2007 0.066 U 14 12 6.9 252 KIONA 7/12/2007 0.61 UJ 7 6 4.1 273 NACHES 7/11/2007 0.061 U 4 3 3.8 82.5 MOXEE 7/11/2007 0.13 UJ 61 56 15 230 GRANGER 7/12/2007 0.061 U 20 18 12 372 SULFUR 7/12/2007 0.064 U 9 8 3.9 361 SPRING 7/12/2007 0.065 U 9 7 3.6 368 TRNSFR BLNK 7/11/2007 0.061 U 3.1 na na na

HARRISON 7/24/2007 0.063 U 13 11 6.5 87.3 PARKER 7/24/2007 0.062 U 10 8 4.7 98.3 EUCLID 7/24/2007 0.065 U 14 12 7.6 236 KIONA 7/26/2007 0.26 UJ 8 6 4.2 266 NACHES 7/24/2007 0.063 U 5 3 3.2 92 MOXEE 7/24/2007 0.079 UJ 44 40 13 230 GRANGER 7/24/2007 0.063 U 13 12 8.7 391 SULFUR 7/24/2007 0.063 U 9 J 7 4.3 321 SPRING 7/24/2007 0.063 U 8 6 3.3 331

CHERRY 8/8/2007 0.061 U 47 41 18 343 WIPPLE 8/8/2007 0.062 U 49 42 21 350 HARRISON 8/8/2007 0.063 U 10 8 4.1 83.7 PARKER 8/9/2007 0.066 U 10 8 5.6 97.3 EUCLID 8/9/2007 0.062 U 11 9 6.2 240 KIONA 8/9/2007 0.25 UJ 7 6 3.5 258 NACHES 8/8/2007 0.063 U 5 5 4.8 89.7 MOXEE 8/8/2007 0.063 U 34 30 11 232 GRANGER 8/9/2007 0.066 U 14 11 8.3 353 SULFUR REP 8/9/2007 0.062 U 14 12 7.1 299 SPRING 8/9/2007 0.063 U 14 11 6 265 Methoxychlor TSS Turbidity TNVSS Conductivity

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 243 Collection Flow Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

7344082 HARRISON 8/23/2007 1,653 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 7344085 PARKER 8/23/2007 578 0.063 U 0.11 0.063 U 7344088 EUCILID 8/23/2007 1,414 0.083 0.54 0.11 7344090 KIONA 8/23/2007 2,682 0.061 U 0.23 0.075 7344083 NACHES 8/22/2007 394 0.063 U 0.21 0.075 7344084 MOXEE 8/22/2007 78 0.23 1.3 0.25 7344086 GRANGER 8/22/2007 42 0.6 2.8 0.31 7344087 SULFUR 8/22/2007 401 0.58 2.4 0.19 7344089 SPRING 8/23/2007 36 0.065 U 0.46 0.14

7364080 CHERRY 9/5/2007 422 0.065 0.13 0.061 U 7364081 WIPPLE 9/5/2007 203 0.063 0.27 0.062 U 7364082 HARRISON 9/5/2007 462 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 7364085 PARKER 9/6/2007 452 0.067 U 0.12 0.067 U 7364088 EUCLID 9/6/2007 1,041 0.063 U 0.42 0.11 7364090 KIONA 9/6/2007 2,421 0.063 U 0.18 0.063 U 7364091 KIONA REP 9/6/2007 - - 0.065 U 0.17 0.065 U 7364083 NACHES 9/5/2007 1,720 0.061 U 0.16 0.061 U 7364084 MOXEE 9/5/2007 54 0.19 1.1 0.2 7364086 GRANGER 9/6/2007 40 0.28 2 0.29 7364087 SULFUR 9/6/2007 364 0.16 1.2 0.14 7364089 SPRING 9/6/2007 71 0.063 U 0.42 0.12

7384082 HARRISON 9/19/2007 520 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7384085 PARKER 9/19/2007 473 0.063 U 0.15 0.063 U 7384088 EUCLID 9/20/2007 1,049 0.061 U 0.45 0.085 7384090 KIONA 9/20/2007 2,519 0.063 U 0.18 0.063 U 7384083 NACHES 9/19/2007 2,386 0.063 U 0.13 0.063 U 7384084 MOXEE 9/19/2007 61 0.23 1.2 0.22 7384086 GRANGER 9/20/2007 39 0.33 2 0.3 7384087 SULFUR 9/20/2007 346 0.093 0.87 0.14 7384089 SPRING 9/20/2007 28 0.063 U 0.4 0.13 7384092 TRNSFR BLNK 9/19/2007 - - 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 244 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) HARRISON 8/23/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.083 J PARKER 8/23/2007 0.076 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.25 EUCILID 8/23/2007 0.18 J 2 1 0.3 J 0.99 KIONA 8/23/2007 0.15 J 1.5 0.46 0.25 1.3 NACHES 8/22/2007 0.063 U 0.071 UJ 0.077 0.063 U 0.22 MOXEE 8/22/2007 0.062 U 0.22 J 0.19 0.35 0.9 GRANGER 8/22/2007 0.37 0.49 2.9 0.49 1.6 SULFUR 8/22/2007 0.65 0.85 4 1.6 2 SPRING 8/23/2007 0.15 J 0.38 J 1.1 0.93 9.3

CHERRY 9/5/2007 0.21 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.078 WIPPLE 9/5/2007 0.26 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.12 HARRISON 9/5/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.066 J PARKER 9/6/2007 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.1 J 0.12 0.14 J EUCLID 9/6/2007 0.14 J 2.5 0.15 0.068 J 0.67 KIONA 9/6/2007 0.12 J 1 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.67 KIONA REP 9/6/2007 0.19 1.1 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.64 NACHES 9/5/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.2 J MOXEE 9/5/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.55 0.35 0.92 GRANGER 9/6/2007 0.21 J 0.47 J 0.18 0.16 J 0.96 SULFUR 9/6/2007 0.31 J 0.52 J 0.24 0.31 J 0.78 SPRING 9/6/2007 0.17 J 0.21 J 0.13 0.23 J 2.4

HARRISON 9/19/2007 0.12 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U J 0.1 J PARKER 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U J 0.28 J EUCLID 9/20/2007 0.11 J 5.1 0.087 U 0.061 U J 0.46 J KIONA 9/20/2007 0.1 J 2.2 0.068 UJ 0.063 U J 0.48 J NACHES 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U J 0.22 J MOXEE 9/19/2007 0.15 0.2 UJ 0.17 0.31 J 0.58 J GRANGER 9/20/2007 0.12 J 0.08 J 0.086 UJ 0.084 J 0.47 J SULFUR 9/20/2007 0.25 0.31 0.085 UJ 0.1 J 0.43 J SPRING 9/20/2007 0.17 J 0.16 J 0.12 UJ 0.1 J 1.7 J TRNSFR BLNK 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U J 0.063 UJ Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 245 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) HARRISON 8/23/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U PARKER 8/23/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCILID 8/23/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 8/23/2007 3.0 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 8/22/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 8/22/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U GRANGER 8/22/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 8/22/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 8/23/2007 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U

CHERRY 9/5/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U WIPPLE 9/5/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 9/5/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U PARKER 9/6/2007 3.3 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U EUCLID 9/6/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 9/6/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA REP 9/6/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U NACHES 9/5/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U MOXEE 9/5/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U GRANGER 9/6/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 9/6/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 9/6/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

HARRISON 9/19/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U PARKER 9/19/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U EUCLID 9/20/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U KIONA 9/20/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U NACHES 9/19/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U MOXEE 9/19/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U GRANGER 9/20/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U SULFUR 9/20/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U SPRING 9/20/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.081 TRNSFR BLNK 9/19/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 UCisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor Toxaphene Oxychlordane

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 246 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) HARRISON 8/23/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ PARKER 8/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCILID 8/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.22 J KIONA 8/23/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.26 NACHES 8/22/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ MOXEE 8/22/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ GRANGER 8/22/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.21 SULFUR 8/22/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.19 J SPRING 8/23/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U

CHERRY 9/5/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U WIPPLE 9/5/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 9/5/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U PARKER 9/6/2007 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U EUCLID 9/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 UJ KIONA 9/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.095 UJ KIONA REP 9/6/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.076 UJ NACHES 9/5/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U MOXEE 9/5/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U GRANGER 9/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 9/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 9/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

HARRISON 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ PARKER 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ EUCLID 9/20/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ KIONA 9/20/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ NACHES 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ MOXEE 9/19/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ GRANGER 9/20/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ SULFUR 9/20/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ SPRING 9/20/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ Alpha-BHC BetaBHC DeltaBHC Lindane Aldrin Endrin

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 247 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) HARRISON 8/23/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U PARKER 8/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCILID 8/23/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 8/23/2007 0.061 U 0.091 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 8/22/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.12 UJ 0.063 U MOXEE 8/22/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U GRANGER 8/22/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.095 0.063 U SULFUR 8/22/2007 0.14 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 8/23/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U

CHERRY 9/5/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U WIPPLE 9/5/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U HARRISON 9/5/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U PARKER 9/6/2007 0.085 UJ 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U EUCLID 9/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 9/6/2007 0.063 U 0.091 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA REP 9/6/2007 0.22 UJ 0.31 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U NACHES 9/5/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U MOXEE 9/5/2007 0.073 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U GRANGER 9/6/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 9/6/2007 0.077 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.074 UJ 0.063 U SPRING 9/6/2007 0.08 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

HARRISON 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 9/20/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U KIONA 9/20/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 9/19/2007 0.31 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U GRANGER 9/20/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.08 0.062 U SULFUR 9/20/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SPRING 9/20/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TRNSFR BLNK 9/19/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 248 Collection Conductivity Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) HARRISON 8/23/2007 0.18 UJ 8 6 4.4 95.3 PARKER 8/23/2007 0.063 U 8 6 4 107 EUCILID 8/23/2007 0.063 U 14 11 7.4 214 KIONA 8/23/2007 0.061 U 11 9 5 239 NACHES 8/22/2007 0.37 UJ 6 4 4.3 88.4 MOXEE 8/22/2007 0.062 UJ 56 51 16 217 GRANGER 8/22/2007 0.063 U 17 15 7.6 425 SULFUR 8/22/2007 0.063 U 38 35 16 270 SPRING 8/23/2007 0.28 UJ 10 8 5.2 309

CHERRY 9/5/2007 0.061 U 24 21 10 284 WIPPLE 9/5/2007 0.062 U 28 24 13 196 HARRISON 9/5/2007 0.061 U 2 1 1.7 115 PARKER 9/6/2007 0.46 UJ 10 8 5.1 111 EUCLID 9/6/2007 0.063 U 11 9 5 255 KIONA 9/6/2007 0.063 U 6 5 2.8 274 KIONA REP 9/6/2007 0.065 U 7 6 2.9 274 NACHES 9/5/2007 0.061 U 14 12 11 79.3 MOXEE 9/5/2007 0.2 UJ 36 33 11 265 GRANGER 9/6/2007 0.063 U 11 10 5.2 396 SULFUR 9/6/2007 0.12 UJ 17 15 7.7 316 SPRING 9/6/2007 0.063 U 14 12 3.8 288

HARRISON 9/19/2007 0.063 UJ 4 3 2.4 145 PARKER 9/19/2007 0.063 UJ 13 11 11 112 EUCLID 9/20/2007 0.061 UJ 10 8 6 252 KIONA 9/20/2007 0.19 UJ 5 4 2.8 278 NACHES 9/19/2007 0.063 UJ 14 12 12 79.6 MOXEE 9/19/2007 0.062 UJ 41 37 16 280 GRANGER 9/20/2007 0.062 UJ 20 18 11 374 SULFUR 9/20/2007 0.061 UJ 21 19 9.2 300 SPRING 9/20/2007 0.063 UJ 6 5 2.9 376 TRNSFR BLNK 9/19/2007 0.063 UJ na na na na Methoxychlor TSS TNVSS Turbidity

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 249 Collection Flow 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

7404080 CHERRY 10/3/2007 516 0.064 U 0.36 J 0.064 U 7404081 WIPPLE 10/3/2007 204 0.093 J 0.55 J 0.063 U 7404082 HARRISON 10/3/2007 486 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 7404085 PARKER 10/3/2007 716 0.061 U 0.18 J 0.061 U 7404088 EUCLID 10/4/2007 1,359 0.065 U 0.77 J 0.12 7404090 KIONA 10/4/2007 2,943 0.061 U 0.39 J 0.092 7404083 NACHES 10/3/2007 1,172 0.069 UJ 0.31 J 0.078 UJ 7404084 MOXEE 10/3/2007 67 0.28 1.5 J 0.25 7404086 GRANGER 10/4/2007 42 0.23 3.2 J 0.38 7404091 GRANGER REP 10/4/2007 - - 0.29 3.6 J 0.46 7404087 SULFUR 10/4/2007 413 0.092 J 1.3 J 0.18 7404089 SPRING 10/4/2007 77 0.37 0.95 J 0.26

7454082 HARRISON 11/8/2007 848 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7454085 PARKER 11/8/2007 1,373 0.063 U 0.068 0.063 U 7454091 PARKER REP 11/8/2007 - - 0.063 U 0.066 0.063 U 7454088 EUCLID 11/8/2007 1,430 0.063 U 0.19 0.063 U 7454090 KIONA 11/8/2007 2,702 0.067 U 0.18 0.067 U 7454083 NACHES 11/8/2007 456 0.064 U 0.081 0.064 U 7454084 MOXEE 11/8/2007 15 0.064 U 0.081 0.064 U 7454086 GRANGER 11/8/2007 22 0.12 J 1.9 0.31 7454087 SULFUR 11/8/2007 101 0.062 U 1.2 0.23 7454089 SPRING 11/8/2007 12 0.062 U 0.39 0.12

7494082 HARRISON 12/4/2007 794 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 7494091 HARRISON REP 12/4/2007 - - 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 7494085 PARKER 12/4/2007 5,500 0.1 0.32 0.083 7494088 EUCLID 12/5/2007 3,724 0.12 J 0.75 J 0.15 J 7494090 KIONA 12/5/2007 3,865 0.22 1.3 0.22 7494083 NACHES 12/4/2007 5,447 0.13 J 0.27 J 0.07 J 7494084 MOXEE 12/4/2007 16 0.078 0.43 0.12 7494086 GRANGER 12/5/2007 22 0.13 2.8 0.43 7494087 SULFUR 12/5/2007 70 0.074 1.8 0.36 7494089 SPRING 12/5/2007 8 0.065 U 0.3 0.11 U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 250 Collection Dieldrin Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/ L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 10/3/2007 0.29 28 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U WIPPLE 10/3/2007 0.37 1.5 0.063 U 0.13 UJ 0.12 HARRISON 10/3/2007 0.11 4 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.12 J PARKER 10/3/2007 0.061 U 1.3 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.21 EUCLID 10/4/2007 0.066 UJ 15 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.35 KIONA 10/4/2007 0.07 J 9.5 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.39 NACHES 10/3/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.087 J 0.062 U 0.15 MOXEE 10/3/2007 0.061 J 1.5 0.14 0.83 0.52 GRANGER 10/4/2007 0.14 J 0.47 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.41 GRANGER REP 10/4/2007 0.14 J 0.45 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.41 SULFUR 10/4/2007 0.2 J 1.3 0.063 U 0.085 J 0.4 SPRING 10/4/2007 0.14 J 1.1 0.11 J 0.16 J 1

HARRISON 11/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.089 J PARKER 11/8/2007 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.063 U 0.1 0.16 J PARKER REP 11/8/2007 0.063 U 0.12 UJ 0.063 U 0.11 J 0.15 EUCLID 11/8/2007 0.063 U 0.41 J 0.063 U 0.089 J 0.16 KIONA 11/8/2007 0.067 U 0.37 J 0.067 U 0.073 J 0.19 NACHES 11/8/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.079 MOXEE 11/8/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.079 GRANGER 11/8/2007 0.082 J 0.27 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.24 SULFUR 11/8/2007 0.32 J 0.062 U 0.11 0.094 J 0.6 SPRING 11/8/2007 0.19 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.64

HARRISON 12/4/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U HARRISON REP 12/4/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.089 PARKER 12/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.08 0.36 J EUCLID 12/5/2007 0.063 U 0.36 J 0.063 U 0.11 0.41 KIONA 12/5/2007 0.084 0.71 J 0.078 0.13 0.48 NACHES 12/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.085 0.26 J MOXEE 12/4/2007 0.064 0.32 0.15 0.43 0.94 GRANGER 12/5/2007 0.13 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.29 SULFUR 12/5/2007 0.37 0.07 0.063 U 0.14 0.44 SPRING 12/5/2007 0.16 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.9 Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate Chlorpyrifos

U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated. na = not analyzed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 251 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 10/3/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U WIPPLE 10/3/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 10/3/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 10/3/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 10/4/2007 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U KIONA 10/4/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 10/3/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U MOXEE 10/3/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER 10/4/2007 3 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER REP 10/4/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 10/4/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 10/4/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

HARRISON 11/8/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 11/8/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER REP 11/8/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 11/8/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 11/8/2007 3.3 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U NACHES 11/8/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U MOXEE 11/8/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANGER 11/8/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SULFUR 11/8/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SPRING 11/8/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U

HARRISON 12/4/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U HARRISON REP 12/4/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U PARKER 12/4/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 12/5/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U J 0.063 UJ KIONA 12/5/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U NACHES 12/4/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U J 0.063 UJ MOXEE 12/4/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U GRANGER 12/5/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SULFUR 12/5/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 12/5/2007 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U Toxaphene CisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor Oxychlordane

U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated. na = not analyzed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 252 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 10/3/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.08 UJ 0.064 U WIPPLE 10/3/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 10/3/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 10/3/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 10/4/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U KIONA 10/4/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.18 UJ NACHES 10/3/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.069 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U MOXEE 10/3/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER 10/4/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER REP 10/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 10/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.095 UJ SPRING 10/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.071 UJ

HARRISON 11/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 11/8/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER REP 11/8/2007 0.063 U 0.53 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 11/8/2007 0.063 U 0.09 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 11/8/2007 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 UJ 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U NACHES 11/8/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U MOXEE 11/8/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANGER 11/8/2007 0.062 U 0.064 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SULFUR 11/8/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SPRING 11/8/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U

HARRISON 12/4/2007 0.065 U 0.21 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.065 U HARRISON REP 12/4/2007 0.065 U 0.15 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.065 U PARKER 12/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U EUCLID 12/5/2007 0.063 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U KIONA 12/5/2007 0.062 U 0.094 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U NACHES 12/4/2007 0.063 UJ 0.091 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U MOXEE 12/4/2007 0.062 U 0.11 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.067 UJ GRANGER 12/5/2007 0.065 U 0.12 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.091 UJ SULFUR 12/5/2007 0.063 U 0.09 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.083 UJ SPRING 12/5/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.065 U Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC DeltaBHC Lindane Aldrin Endrin

U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated. na = not analyzed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 253 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CHERRY 10/3/2007 0.11 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U WIPPLE 10/3/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U HARRISON 10/3/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 10/3/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 10/4/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U KIONA 10/4/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 10/3/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U MOXEE 10/3/2007 1.1 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER 10/4/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U GRANGER REP 10/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SULFUR 10/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 10/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

HARRISON 11/8/2007 0.11 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 11/8/2007 0.13 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER REP 11/8/2007 0.13 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 11/8/2007 0.07 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 11/8/2007 0.15 UJ 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U NACHES 11/8/2007 0.074 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U MOXEE 11/8/2007 0.074 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANGER 11/8/2007 0.064 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SULFUR 11/8/2007 0.19 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SPRING 11/8/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U

HARRISON 12/4/2007 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.16 U HARRISON REP 12/4/2007 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.16 U PARKER 12/4/2007 0.084 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.21 J EUCLID 12/5/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.16 UJ KIONA 12/5/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.16 U NACHES 12/4/2007 0.15 UJ 0.077 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.16 UJ MOXEE 12/4/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.16 U GRANGER 12/5/2007 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.16 U SULFUR 12/5/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.16 U SPRING 12/5/2007 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.16 U Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated. na = not analyzed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 254 Collection Conductivity Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) CHERRY 10/3/2007 0.064 U 36 32 12 287 WIPPLE 10/3/2007 0.063 U 33 30 12 222 HARRISON 10/3/2007 0.063 U 5 4 3.8 156 PARKER 10/3/2007 0.061 U 8 7 5.3 140 EUCLID 10/4/2007 0.065 U 10 9 6.5 294 KIONA 10/4/2007 0.095 UJ 5 4 3.7 247 NACHES 10/3/2007 0.11 UJ 6 5 9.8 88.1 MOXEE 10/3/2007 0.36 UJ 34 31 12 304 GRANGER 10/4/2007 0.061 U 28 24 12 399 GRANGER REP 10/4/2007 0.063 U 26 23 12 403 SULFUR 10/4/2007 0.063 U 21 19 7.4 J 287 SPRING 10/4/2007 0.063 U 11 9 5 295

HARRISON 11/8/2007 0.063 U 8 6 3.3 152 PARKER 11/8/2007 0.063 U 4 3 1.6 157 PARKER REP 11/8/2007 0.063 U 3 2 1.7 157 EUCLID 11/8/2007 0.063 U 8 7 4.1 247 KIONA 11/8/2007 0.067 U 4 3 2.5 267 NACHES 11/8/2007 0.39 UJ 2 1 0.9 103 MOXEE 11/8/2007 0.39 UJ 2 1 0.9 103 GRANGER 11/8/2007 0.062 U 36 28 16 656 SULFUR 11/8/2007 0.062 U 12 9 7.2 750 SPRING 11/8/2007 0.062 U 5 4 2.4 598

HARRISON 12/4/2007 0.065 U 6 4 3.5 177 HARRISON REP 12/4/2007 0.42 UJ 6 5 3.6 178 PARKER 12/4/2007 0.063 U 164 143 120 101 EUCLID 12/5/2007 0.063 U 342 313 150 124 KIONA 12/5/2007 0.062 U 199 176 130 145 NACHES 12/4/2007 0.063 U 229 201 160 61.4 MOXEE 12/4/2007 0.062 U 4 2 6.6 758 GRANGER 12/5/2007 0.065 U 84 78 24 740 SULFUR 12/5/2007 0.063 U 40 33 19 750 SPRING 12/5/2007 0.065 U 3 2 1.3 665 Methoxychlor TSS TNVSS Turbidity

U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated. na = not analyzed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 255 Collection Flow 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

8024682 HARRISON 1/9/2008 433 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 8024683 NACHES 1/9/2008 883 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 8024691 NACHES REP 1/9/2008 - - 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 8024684 MOXEE 1/9/2008 13 0.072 0.39 0.12 8024685 PARKER 1/9/2008 1,536 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 8024686 GRANGER 1/10/2008 18 44 5.5 0.89 8024687 SULFUR 1/10/2008 64 0.11 2.5 0.45 8024688 EUCLID 1/10/2008 1,788 0.061 U 0.18 J 0.061 U 8024689 SPRING 1/10/2008 8 0.061 U 0.33 0.089 8024690 KIONA 1/10/2008 2,497 0.061 U 0.14 0.061 U 8024692 TRNSFR BLNK 1/9/2008 - - 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U

8064082 HARRISON 2/5/2008 793 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 8064083 NACHES 2/5/2008 872 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 8064084 MOXEE 2/5/2008 13 0.061 UJ 0.27 J 0.2 J 8064091 MOXEE REP 2/5/2008 - - 0.061 U 0.28 0.15 8064085 PARKER 2/5/2008 1,472 0.063 UJ 0.073 J 0.063 UJ 8064086 GRANGER 2/6/2008 28 0.17 J 1 J 0.18 J 8064087 SULFUR 2/6/2008 73 0.33 J 1.8 J 0.42 J 8064088 EUCLID 2/6/2008 1,652 0.19 0.69 0.11 8064089 SPRING 2/6/2008 9 0.063 U 0.49 0.14 8064090 KIONA 2/6/2008 2,255 0.063 U 0.14 0.063 U

8104082 HARRISON 3/4/2008 679 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 8104083 NACHES 3/4/2008 1,113 0.061 U 0.064 0.061 U 8104084 MOXEE 3/4/2008 12 0.077 0.28 0.098 8104085 PARKER 3/4/2008 2,957 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 8104086 GRANGER 3/3/2008 18 0.15 2.1 0.42 8104087 SULFUR 3/3/2008 63 0.093 1.6 0.39 8104088 EUCLID 3/3/2008 3,259 0.063 U 0.2 0.063 U 8104090 SPRING 3/3/2008 6 0.061 U 0.31 0.081 8104091 KIONA 3/3/2008 4,151 0.062 U 0.26 0.096 8104089 KIONA REP 3/3/2008 - - 0.061 U 0.24 0.08

8134084 MOXEE 3/24/2008 38 0.26 1.1 0.2 8134086 GRANGER 3/28/2008 21 0.23 1.9 0.27 8134087 SULFUR 3/24/2008 303 0.16 1.4 0.19 8134091 SULFUR REP 3/24/2008 - - 0.16 1.5 0.2 8134089 SPRING 3/24/2008 41 0.15 0.78 0.15 U = not detected at or above reported value. J = estimated. na = not analyzed.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 256 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) HARRISON 1/9/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 1/9/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.075 J NACHES REP 1/9/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.1 J MOXEE 1/9/2008 0.063 U 0.31 J 0.063 U 0.15 0.79 J PARKER 1/9/2008 0.064 U 0.18 J 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.17 J GRANGER 1/10/2008 0.061 U 0.077 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.27 J SULFUR 1/10/2008 0.22 0.33 J 0.061 U 0.11 0.51 J EUCLID 1/10/2008 0.061 U 0.26 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.28 J SPRING 1/10/2008 0.077 J 0.13 J 0.061 U 0.33 0.85 J KIONA 1/10/2008 0.061 U 0.19 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.21 J TRNSFR BLNK 1/9/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U

HARRISON 2/5/2008 0.061 U 0.15 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.22 J NACHES 2/5/2008 0.063 U 0.092 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 J MOXEE 2/5/2008 0.13 J 0.69 J 0.16 0.22 0.33 J MOXEE REP 2/5/2008 0.12 J 0.79 J 0.1 J 0.24 0.3 J PARKER 2/5/2008 0.063 U 0.33 J 0.072 J 0.12 0.25 J GRANGER 2/6/2008 0.47 J 0.9 J 0.11 J 0.23 J 0.48 J SULFUR 2/6/2008 0.66 0.58 UJ 0.41 UJ 0.13 J 0.37 J EUCLID 2/6/2008 0.08 0.54 J 0.063 U 0.11 0.19 J SPRING 2/6/2008 0.096 0.18 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.31 J KIONA 2/6/2008 0.063 U 0.37 J 0.16 0.14 0.4 J

HARRISON 3/4/2008 0.061 U 0.13 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ NACHES 3/4/2008 0.061 U 0.065 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.11 UJ MOXEE 3/4/2008 0.13 J 0.47 J 0.062 U 0.25 J 1.5 J PARKER 3/4/2008 0.062 U 0.11 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.13 UJ GRANGER 3/3/2008 0.17 0.15 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.39 UJ SULFUR 3/3/2008 0.47 0.36 J 0.063 U 0.23 J 1 J EUCLID 3/3/2008 0.063 U 0.16 J 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.24 UJ SPRING 3/3/2008 0.061 U 0.2 J 0.061 U 0.077 J 0.29 UJ KIONA 3/3/2008 0.14 0.12 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.89 J KIONA REP 3/3/2008 0.14 0.092 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.81 J

MOXEE 3/24/2008 0.063 U 16 3.6 1.8 2.9 GRANGER 3/28/2008 0.079 23 1 0.65 J 1.8 J SULFUR 3/24/2008 0.16 58 6.6 2.8 4.5 SULFUR REP 3/24/2008 0.14 56 7.3 3 4.1 SPRING 3/24/2008 0.12 J 211 7.3 2.8 7.1 Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Chlorpyrifos Dieldrin Endosulfan Sulfate

U U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 257 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) HARRISON 1/9/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 UJ 0.063 U 0.19 UJ NACHES 1/9/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.15 UJ NACHES REP 1/9/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.15 UJ MOXEE 1/9/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.19 UJ PARKER 1/9/2008 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.22 UJ 0.064 U 0.21 UJ GRANGER 1/10/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SULFUR 1/10/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.15 UJ EUCLID 1/10/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.10 UJ 0.061 U 0.13 UJ SPRING 1/10/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.14 UJ KIONA 1/10/2008 3.0 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.13 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 1/9/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.16 UJ

HARRISON 2/5/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 2/5/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 2/5/2008 3 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ MOXEE REP 2/5/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U PARKER 2/5/2008 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ GRANGER 2/6/2008 3 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ SULFUR 2/6/2008 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ EUCLID 2/6/2008 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 2/6/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 2/6/2008 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

HARRISON 3/4/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 3/4/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U MOXEE 3/4/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U PARKER 3/4/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U GRANGER 3/3/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.12 UJ SULFUR 3/3/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 3/3/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 3/3/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U KIONA 3/3/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA REP 3/3/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U

MOXEE 3/24/2008 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 3/28/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SULFUR 3/24/2008 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U SULFUR REP 3/24/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 3/24/2008 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U Toxaphene Cis-Chlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor Oxychlordane

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 258 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) HARRISON 1/9/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 1/9/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U NACHES REP 1/9/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U MOXEE 1/9/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 1/9/2008 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANGER 1/10/2008 0.095 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SULFUR 1/10/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 1/10/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SPRING 1/10/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U KIONA 1/10/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U TRNSFR BLNK 1/9/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U

HARRISON 2/5/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 2/5/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 2/5/2008 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.088 UJ 0.061 UJ MOXEE REP 2/5/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.075 UJ 0.061 U PARKER 2/5/2008 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 2/6/2008 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.41 J SULFUR 2/6/2008 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.27 UJ 0.063 U EUCLID 2/6/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 2/6/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.1 UJ 0.075 KIONA 2/6/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.067 UJ 0.22

HARRISON 3/4/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ NACHES 3/4/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ MOXEE 3/4/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ PARKER 3/4/2008 0.062 U 0.072 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ GRANGER 3/3/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ SULFUR 3/3/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ EUCLID 3/3/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ SPRING 3/3/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ KIONA 3/3/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ KIONA REP 3/3/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ

MOXEE 3/24/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 3/28/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.098 0.062 U SULFUR 3/24/2008 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.12 0.064 U SULFUR REP 3/24/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.1 0.063 U SPRING 3/24/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.26 0.063 U Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Delta-BHC Lindane Aldrin Endrin

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 259 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) HARRISON 1/9/2008 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U NACHES 1/9/2008 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U NACHES REP 1/9/2008 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U MOXEE 1/9/2008 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U PARKER 1/9/2008 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANGER 1/10/2008 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.069 UJ 0.061 U SULFUR 1/10/2008 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U EUCLID 1/10/2008 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SPRING 1/10/2008 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U KIONA 1/10/2008 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U TRNSFR BLNK 1/9/2008 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U

HARRISON 2/5/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 2/5/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MOXEE 2/5/2008 0.46 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 UJ MOXEE REP 2/5/2008 0.46 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U PARKER 2/5/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ GRANGER 2/6/2008 0.11 UJ 0.62 J 0.061 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.061 UJ SULFUR 2/6/2008 0.21 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ EUCLID 2/6/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 2/6/2008 0.16 0.21 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U KIONA 2/6/2008 0.063 U 0.16 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

HARRISON 3/4/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U NACHES 3/4/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U MOXEE 3/4/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U PARKER 3/4/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U GRANGER 3/3/2008 0.11 UJ 0.069 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SULFUR 3/3/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EUCLID 3/3/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 3/3/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U KIONA 3/3/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U KIONA REP 3/3/2008 0.061 U 0.069 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U

MOXEE 3/24/2008 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANGER 3/28/2008 0.062 UJ 0.097 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SULFUR 3/24/2008 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U SULFUR REP 3/24/2008 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SPRING 3/24/2008 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 260 Collection Conductivity Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) HARRISON 1/9/2008 0.063 U 2 na 1 144 NACHES 1/9/2008 0.062 U 2 na 1.5 87 NACHES REP 1/9/2008 0.062 U 2 U na 2 87.1 MOXEE 1/9/2008 0.23 UJ 13 na 4.4 792 PARKER 1/9/2008 0.064 U 3 na 1.7 144 GRANGER 1/10/2008 0.061 U 141 133 27 733 SULFUR 1/10/2008 0.22 80 71 28 J 771 EUCLID 1/10/2008 0.061 U 5 4 3.2 224 SPRING 1/10/2008 0.061 U 2 1 1.4 671 KIONA 1/10/2008 0.061 U 3 2 2.6 248 TRNSFR BLNK 1/9/2008 0.062 U na na na na

HARRISON 2/5/2008 0.061 UJ 4 3 1.1 J 142 NACHES 2/5/2008 0.063 UJ 2 1 1.8 J 93.1 MOXEE 2/5/2008 0.22 UJ 7 6 3.4 801 MOXEE REP 2/5/2008 0.31 UJ 6 4 3.4 796 PARKER 2/5/2008 0.084 UJ 5 4 2.5 144 GRANGER 2/6/2008 0.45 UJ 56 42 37 J 775 SULFUR 2/6/2008 0.063 UJ 42 37 24 J 766 EUCLID 2/6/2008 0.063 UJ 10 7 7.7 J 242 SPRING 2/6/2008 0.063 UJ 2 2 1.6 J 680 KIONA 2/6/2008 0.063 UJ 3 3 2.6 J 243

HARRISON 3/4/2008 0.061 UJ 6 5 3.7 149 NACHES 3/4/2008 0.061 UJ 4 3 4.4 104 MOXEE 3/4/2008 0.35 UJ 9 6 3.3 814 PARKER 3/4/2008 0.062 UJ 7 6 4.6 146 GRANGER 3/3/2008 0.078 UJ 47 44 5.7 735 SULFUR 3/3/2008 0.29 UJ 42 38 11 801 EUCLID 3/3/2008 0.063 UJ 22 19 11 180 SPRING 3/3/2008 0.067 UJ 23 20 14 189 KIONA 3/3/2008 0.062 UJ 1 1 U 0.7 660 KIONA REP 3/3/2008 0.061 UJ 1 1 U 0.6 661

MOXEE 3/24/2008 0.063 U 85 66 28 254 GRANGER 3/28/2008 0.17 UJ 156 134 90 J 626 SULFUR 3/24/2008 0.083 UJ 39 35 16 306 SULFUR REP 3/24/2008 0.063 U 48 44 14 299 SPRING 3/24/2008 0.063 U 28 24 13 231 Methoxychlor TSS TNVSS Turbidity

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 261 

## Appendix K. Screening Survey Data for Surface Water, 2007- 08

Collection Flow 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) 7204084 AHTANUM 5/16/2007 120 0.062 U 0.19 0.062 U 7204101 AMON 5/16/2007 48 0.063 U 0.14 0.063 U 7204099 CORRAL 5/16/2007 11 0.064 U 0.27 0.064 U 7204090 COU LEE DR 5/17/2007 16 0.69 0.57 0.13 7234103 COWICHEE 6/4/2007 37 0.35 J 0.87 0.07 J 7204093 DID 7 5/16/2007 9.5 0.072 UJ 1.4 0.17 7204097 DRAIN 31 5/16/2007 3.4 0.25 1.3 0.13 7204086 EAST TOP 5/17/2007 31 0.33 0.65 0.13 7204096 GRANDVIEW 5/16/2007 11 0.48 2.0 0.19 7204088 MARION 5/16/2007 109 0.13 0.31 0.064 7204102 MARION REP 5/16/2007 - - 0.14 UJ 0.36 0.064 U 7204095 SATUS 302 5/17/2007 14 1.3 5.9 0.18 7204094 SATUS 303 5/17/2007 30 0.17 UJ 1.3 0.11 7204091 SATUS CK 5/17/2007 162 0.063 U 0.13 0.063 U 7204082 SELAH DCH 5/16/2007 6.0 0.32 1.7 0.55 7204092 SOUTH DR 5/17/2007 65 1.2 3.8 0.48 7204103 SOUTH DR REP 5/17/2007 - - 1.3 3.8 0.57 7204087 SUB 35 5/17/2007 47 1.2 1.3 0.40 7214100 TAYLOR D 5/22/2007 6.0 0.063 U 0.32 0.082 7204089 TOP CK 5/17/2007 69 0.078 0.25 0.061 7204098 WAUNA 5/16/2007 6.5 0.072 UJ 0.71 0.088 7214102 WENAS 5/22/2007 14 0.063 U 0.096 0.063 U 7204083 WIDE HOL 5/16/2007 13 0.1 0.97 0.39 7204085 ZILLAH 5/16/2007 2.6 0.5 2.9 0.46 - - SELAH CR. dry - - COLD CR. dry 4,4'-DDD

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 262 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 5/16/ 2007 0.062 U 0.6 0.47 0.3 0.75 J AMON 5/16/2007 0.063 U 0.47 0.20 J 0.23 0.76 CORRAL 5/16/2007 0.077 UJ 1.3 J 0.15 0.12 J 1.2 COULEE DR 5/17/2007 0.062 U 4.5 0.28 UJ 0.31 0.76 J COWICHEE 6/4/2007 0.081 UJ 1.0 0.25 0.27 0.48 J DID 7 5/16/2007 0.077 UJ 3.4 0.24 0.13 J 0.83 J DRAIN 31 5/16/2007 0.36 1.3 0.53 0.38 J 1.3 J EAST TOP 5/17/2007 0.25 0.68 1.4 1.0 1.4 J GRANDVIEW 5/16/ 2007 0.32 18 0.58 0.39 1.3 J MARION 5/16/2007 0.13 15 0.55 UJ 0.65 1.1 J MARION REP 5/16/2007 0.12 J 16 0.44 0.62 1.3 SATUS 302 5/17/2007 1.5 7.6 0.16 J 0.34 J 1.4 J SATUS 303 5/17/2007 0.17 J 4.2 0.27 0.23 J 1.2 J SATUS CK 5/17/2007 0.063 U 4.3 0.24 0.16 0.4 UJ SELAH DCH 5/16/2007 0.13 J 1.4 0.46 UJ 0.33 1.1 J SOUTH DR 5/17/2007 0.17 3.2 0.33 0.23 J 1.1 SOUTH DR REP 5/17/2007 0.2 8.1 0.36 0.49 J 1.3 SUB 35 5/17/2007 0.15 3.9 0.33 UJ 0.42 0.94 J TAYLOR D 5/22/2007 0.063 U 0.3 J 0.097 UJ 0.063 U 0.65 TOP CK 5/17/2007 0.13 J 7.9 0.48 UJ 0.62 1.1 J WAUNA 5/16/ 2007 0.063 U 1.9 0.76 0.49 2.5 J WENAS 5/22/2007 0.063 U 0.093 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.36 WIDE HOL 5/16/2007 0.47 2.1 J 1.1 0.85 7.0 J ZILLAH 5/16/2007 0.4 UJ 1.8 0.89 1.2 2.4 J SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 263 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 5/16/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U AMON 5/16/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U CORRAL 5/16/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U COULEE DR 5/17/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U COWICHEE 6/4/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U DID 7 5/16/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U DRAIN 31 5/16/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U EAST TOP 5/17/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.07 U 0.062 U GRANDVIEW 5/16/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MARION 5/16/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U MARION REP 5/16/2007 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U SATUS 302 5/17/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SATUS 303 5/17/2007 3.0 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS CK 5/17/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SELAH DCH 5/16/2007 3.3 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SOUTH DR 5/17/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SOUTH DR REP 5/17/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SUB 35 5/17/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U TAYLOR D 5/22/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TOP CK 5/17/2007 3.0 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U WAUNA 5/16/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WENAS 5/22/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIDE HOL 5/16/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U ZILLAH 5/16/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Toxaphene CisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor Oxychlordane

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 264 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 5/16/ 2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ AMON 5/16/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U CORRAL 5/16/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U COULEE DR 5/17/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.21 UJ 0.062 U COWICHEE 6/4/2007 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U DID 7 5/16/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U DRAIN 31 5/16/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U EAST TOP 5/17/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.12 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.071 UJ GRANDVIEW 5/16/ 2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U MARION 5/16/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.075 UJ 0.092 UJ MARION REP 5/16/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.11 UJ 0.79 UJ SATUS 302 5/17/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.17 UJ 0.094 UJ 0.09 UJ SATUS 303 5/17/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.1 UJ 0.061 U SATUS CK 5/17/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U SELAH DCH 5/16/2007 0.065 U 0.098 UJ 0.065 U 0.069 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.094 UJ SOUTH DR 5/17/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U SOUTH DR REP 5/17/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.19 UJ 0.063 U SUB 35 5/17/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.10 UJ 0.11 UJ TAYLOR D 5/22/2007 0.063 U 0.12 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TOP CK 5/17/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.098 UJ 0.11 UJ WAUNA 5/16/ 2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.75 UJ WENAS 5/22/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIDE HOL 5/16/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.14 UJ ZILLAH 5/16/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry EndrinAlphaBHC BetaBHC DeltaBHC Lindane Aldrin

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 265 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 5/16/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U AMON 5/16/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U CORRAL 5/16/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U COULEE DR 5/17/ 2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U COWICHEE 6/4/2007 0.10 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U DID 7 5/16/2007 0.15 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U DRAIN 31 5/16/2007 0.083 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.071 0.063 U EAST TOP 5/17/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 0.062 U GRANDVIEW 5/16/2007 0.082 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U MARION 5/16/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U MARION REP 5/16/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U SATUS 302 5/17/2007 0.065 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.10 0.063 U SATUS 303 5/17/2007 0.10 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS CK 5/17/2007 0.14 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SELAH DCH 5/16/2007 0.11 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SOUTH DR 5/17/2007 0.078 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SOUTH DR REP 5/17/2007 0.073 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SUB 35 5/17/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U TAYLOR D 5/22/2007 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TOP CK 5/17/2007 0.078 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U WAUNA 5/16/2007 0.087 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WENAS 5/22/2007 0.09 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIDE HOL 5/16/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 J ZILLAH 5/16/2007 0.087 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.062 U 0.087 J 0.062 U SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 266 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) AHTANUM 5/16/2007 0.062 UJ 27 12 130 AMON 5/16/2007 0.063 UJ 23 6.3 312 CORRAL 5/16/2007 0.064 UJ 18 5.7 454 COULEE DR 5/17/2007 0.062 UJ 9 12 274 COWICHEE 6/4/2007 0.33 UJ 44 16 164 DID 7 5/16/2007 0.062 UJ 60 35 350 DRAIN 31 5/16/2007 0.063 UJ 16 11 260 EAST TOP 5/17/2007 0.062 UJ 29 15 186 GRANDVIEW 5/16/2007 0.063 UJ 31 12 174 MARION 5/16/2007 0.062 UJ 13 9.2 233 MARION REP 5/16/2007 0.064 UJ 66 9.2 233 SATUS 302 5/17/2007 0.063 UJ 173 80 279 SATUS 303 5/17/2007 0.061 UJ 47 21 182 SATUS CK 5/17/2007 0.063 UJ 12 6.3 203 SELAH DCH 5/16/2007 0.37 UJ 8 3.8 683 SOUTH DR 5/17/2007 0.46 UJ 92 38 318 SOUTH DR REP 5/17/2007 0.063 UJ 100 40 319 SUB 35 5/17/2007 0.29 UJ 37 20 270 TAYLOR D 5/22/2007 0.063 UJ 16 9.0 421 TOP CK 5/17/2007 0.061 UJ 7 6.8 248 WAUNA 5/16/2007 0.063 UJ 43 19 222 WENAS 5/22/2007 0.21 UJ 10 4 198 WIDE HOL 5/16/2007 0.063 UJ 5 4.2 307 ZILLAH 5/16/2007 0.062 UJ 45 19 160 SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Methoxychlor Total Suspended Solids Turbidity Conductivity

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 267 Collection Flow Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) 7334084 AHT ANUM 8/14/2007 26 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 7334101 AMON 8/16/2007 49 0.062 UJ 0.091 J 0.062 UJ 7334099 CORRAL 8/16/2007 13 0.064 UJ 0.25 J 0.064 UJ 7334090 COULEE DR 8/15/2007 37 0.12 0.36 0.099 7334104 COWICHEE 8/14/2007 2 0.35 0.93 0.21 7334093 DID7 8/16/2007 20 0.061 UJ 0.65 J 0.11 J 7334097 DRAIN 31 8/16/2007 3 0.41 J 1.4 J 0.14 J 7334086 EAST TOP 8/15/2007 15 0.22 0.58 0.21 7334096 GR ANDVIEW 8/16/2007 16 0.64 J 2.3 J 0.23 J 7334088 MARION 8/15/2007 54 0.062 U 0.25 0.066 7334103 SAT302REP 8/15/2007 - - 1.3 5.1 0.14 7334095 SATUS 302 8/15/2007 26 1.3 5.2 0.15 7334094 SATUS 303 8/15/2007 6.6 0.49 2.5 0.22 7334091 SATUS CK 8/15/2007 61 0.065 U 0.13 0.065 U 7334082 SELAH DCH 8/14/2007 6.6 0.46 2.0 0.70 7334092 SOUTH DR 8/15/2007 61 0.79 3.5 0.46 7334087 SUB 35 8/15/2007 60 0.57 0.75 0.25 7334100 TAYLOR D 8/14/2007 1.4 0.062 U 0.30 0.10 7334089 TOP CK 8/15/2007 40 0.063 U 0.16 0.063 U 7334098 W AUNA 8/16/2007 1.6 0.063 UJ 0.25 J 0.063 UJ 7334081 WENAS 8/14/2007 1.9 0.063 U 0.096 0.063 U 7334083 WIDE HOL 8/14/2007 9.6 0.087 1.1 0.38 7334102 WIDE REP 8/14/2007 - - 0.091 1.1 0.39 7334085 ZILLAH 8/15/2007 2.6 0.2 2.5 0.55 - - SELAH CR. dry - - COLD CR. dry 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 268 U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed Field ID Collection Date AHTANUM 8/14/2007 REJ REJ 0.062 UJ REJ 0.062 UJ AMON 8/16/2007 0.12 J 1.1 J 0.19 J 0.17 J 0.78 J CORRAL 8/16/2007 0.064 UJ 0.32 J 0.25 J 0.064 UJ 0.68 J COULEE DR 8/15/2007 0.061 U 21 0.12 0.14 J 0.61 COWICHEE 8/14/2007 0.063 0.063 U 0.25 0.25 0.94 DID7 8/16/2007 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.37 J 0.16 J 0.91 J DRAIN 31 8/16/2007 1.7 0.58 J 0.75 J 0.5 J 1.4 J EAST TOP 8/15/2007 0.14 UJ 0.67 0.34 J 0.41 0.99 GRANDVIEW 8/16/2007 0.55 J 0.62 J 1.5 J 0.56 J 1.5 J MARION 8/15/2007 0.15 J 4.8 0.23 0.17 0.87 SAT302REP 8/15/2007 1.8 4.3 0.2 0.22 1.1 SATUS 302 8/15/2007 1.9 7.6 0.19 0.28 1.1 SATUS 303 8/15/2007 0.31 2.1 0.17 0.061 U 0.99 SATUS CK 8/15/2007 0.079 J 10 0.19 0.12 0.57 SELAH DCH 8/14/2007 0.062 U 0.15 UJ 7.1 5.0 5.8 SOUTH DR 8/15/2007 0.57 2.1 0.2 0.18 1.0 SUB 35 8/15/2007 0.27 12 0.2 0.21 0.94 TAYLOR D 8/14/2007 0.062 U 0.81 0.36 0.1 J 0.57 TOP CK 8/15/2007 0.11 J 3.7 0.2 0.21 0.93 WAUNA 8/16/2007 0.088 J 0.71 J 0.54 J 0.29 J 1.4 J WENAS 8/14/2007 0.063 U 0.13 J 0.081 0.088 UJ 0.49 WIDE HOL 8/14/2007 0.47 0.32 J 0.35 0.53 2.6 WIDE REP 8/14/2007 0.51 0.31 0.38 0.56 3.1 ZILLAH 8/15/2007 0.11 J 0.51 2.2 0.38 1.6 SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Endosulfan Sulfate (ng/L) Endosulfan II (ng/L) Endosulfan I (ng/l) Chlorpyriphos (ng/L) Dieldrin

(ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 269 U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed Field ID Collection Date AHTANUM 8/14/2007 3.1 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ AMON 8/16/2007 3.1 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ CORRAL 8/16/2007 3.2 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ COULEE DR 8/15/2007 3.0 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U COWICHEE 8/14/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U DID7 8/16/2007 3.1 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ DRAIN 31 8/16/2007 3.2 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 J 0.064 UJ EAST TOP 8/15/2007 3.1 U 0.09 J 0.063 U 0.10 UJ 0.098 UJ 0.14 UJ GRANDVIEW 8/16/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ MARION 8/15/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SAT302REP 8/15/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SATUS 302 8/15/2007 3.0 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS 303 8/15/2007 3.0 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS CK 8/15/2007 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SELAH DCH 8/14/2007 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.073 UJ SOUTH DR 8/15/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SUB 35 8/15/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TAYLOR D 8/14/2007 3.1 U 0.13 J 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U TOP CK 8/15/2007 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WAUNA 8/16/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.34 J WENAS 8/14/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIDE HOL 8/14/2007 3.2 U 0.081 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.074 0.063 U WIDE REP 8/14/2007 3.2 U 0.08 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U ZILLAH 8/15/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Toxaphene (ng/L) Oxychlordane

(ng/L)TransNonachlor

(ng/L)TransChlordane

(ng/L))CisNonachlor

(ng/L)CisChlordane

(ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 270 U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed Field ID Collection Date AHTANUM 8/14/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ REJ AMON 8/16/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ CORRAL 8/16/2007 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ COULEE DR 8/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.078 UJ 0.73 COWICHEE 8/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ DID7 8/16/2007 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.27 UJ 0.11 UJ DRAIN 31 8/16/2007 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.36 UJ EAST TOP 8/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.068 UJ 0.063 U GRANDVIEW 8/16/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.095 UJ MARION 8/15/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.096 UJ 0.14 UJ SAT302REP 8/15/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.13 UJ 0.69 J SATUS 302 8/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.11 UJ 0.64 SATUS 303 8/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS CK 8/15/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.092 UJ 0.47 J SELAH DCH 8/14/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.065 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U SOUTH DR 8/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.09 UJ 0.67 SUB 35 8/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.17 UJ 0.17 UJ TAYLOR D 8/14/2007 0.062 U 0.13 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ TOP CK 8/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.8 J WAUNA 8/16/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.19 UJ WENAS 8/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIDE HOL 8/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 J WIDE REP 8/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.15 J ZILLAH 8/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry AlphaBHC (ng/L) BetaBHC (ng/L) DeltaBHC (ng/L) Lindane (ng/L) Aldrin (ng/L) Endrin (ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 271 U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed Field ID Collection Date AHTANUM 8/14/2007 REJ REJ 0.062 UJ REJ 0.062 UJ AMON 8/16/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ CORRAL 8/16/2007 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ COULEE DR 8/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U COWICHEE 8/14/2007 0.12 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.095 UJ 0.063 U DID7 8/16/2007 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ DRAIN 31 8/16/2007 0.076 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ EAST TOP 8/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANDVIEW 8/16/2007 0.087 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ MARION 8/15/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 0.062 U SAT302REP 8/15/2007 0.12 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U SATUS 302 8/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS 303 8/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS CK 8/15/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U SELAH DCH 8/14/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.064 J 0.062 U SOUTH DR 8/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SUB 35 8/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TAYLOR D 8/14/2007 0.062 U 0.28 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U TOP CK 8/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WAUNA 8/16/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.077 J 0.063 UJ WENAS 8/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIDE HOL 8/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.07 J 0.28 WIDE REP 8/14/2007 0.067 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.096 J 0.29 ZILLAH 8/15/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.07 UJ 0.063 U SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Hexachlorobenzene

(ng/L) Heptachlor

Epoxide

(ng/L) Heptachlor (ng/L) Endrin Ketone (ng/L) Endrin Aldehyde

(ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 272 U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed 

### Field ID Collection Date AHTANUM 8/14/2007 REJ 6 3.4 237 AMON 8/16/2007 0.062 UJ 

### 18 5.1 380 CORRAL 8/16/2007 0.064 UJ 

### 30 9.4 436 COULEE DR 8/15/2007 0.061 U 

### 4 2.8 290 COWICHEE 8/14/2007 0.063 UJ 

### 3 2.7 294 DID7 8/16/2007 0.061 UJ 

### 20 14 351 DRAIN 31 8/16/2007 1.2 UJ 

### 7 4.3 268 EAST TOP 8/15/2007 0.063 U 

### 13 9.8 255 GRANDVIEW 8/16/2007 0.063 UJ 

### 27 11 176 MARION 8/15/2007 0.062 U 

### 11 6 247 SAT302REP 8/15/2007 1 UJ 

### 85 40 282 SATUS 302 8/15/2007 0.061 UJ 

### 73 45 282 SATUS 303 8/15/2007 0.061 U 

### 6 4.4 368 SATUS CK 8/15/2007 0.065 U 

### 5 4.9 332 SELAH DCH 8/14/2007 0.062 U 

### 6 2.7 544 SOUTH DR 8/15/2007 0.061 U 

### 25 16 366 SUB 35 8/15/2007 0.063 U 

### 10 8.7 284 TAYLOR D 8/14/2007 0.062 UJ 

### 6 4.3 386 TOP CK 8/15/2007 0.063 U 

### 4 4.2 235 WAUNA 8/16/2007 0.063 UJ 

### 4 3.9 193 WENAS 8/14/2007 0.063 U 

### 5 3.3 510 WIDE HOL 8/14/2007 0.15 UJ 

### 4 2.4 263 WIDE REP 8/14/2007 0.063 UJ 

### 4 2.3 263 ZILLAH 8/15/2007 0.063 U 

### 47 13 164 SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Conductivity (umhos/cm) Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methoxychlor (ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 273 Collection Flow 4,4'-DDT Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) 7464084 AHTANUM 11/15/2007 27 0.061 UJ 0.14 0.061 U 7464101 AMON CK 11/13/2007 19 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 7464099 CORRAL 11/13/2007 7.8 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7464090 COULEE DR 11/14/ 2007 <1 est. 0.063 U 0.15 0.063 U 7464104 COWICHEE 11/15/2007 10 0.068 J 0.27 0.08 7464093 DID 7 11/13/2007 6.0 0.064 U 0.41 0.078 7464097 DRAIN 31 11/13/2007 0.5 0.064 U 0.41 0.064 U 7464086 EAST TOP 11/14/2007 21 0.064 U 0.58 0.24 7464096 GRANDVIEW 11/13/2007 8.8 0.29 3.1 0.49 7464088 MARION 11/14/2007 222 0.067 U 0.27 0.067 U 7464094 SATUS 303 11/13/2007 0.99 0.066 U 0.28 0.066 U 7464091 SATUS CK 11/13/2007 29 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 7484082 SELAH DC H 11/26/2007 9.6 0.51 J 6.1 1.3 7464092 SOUTH DR 11/13/2007 9.2 0.063 U 0.83 0.16 7464102 SOUTH REP 11/13/2007 - - 0.063 U 0.82 0.16 7464087 SUB 35 11/14/2007 23 0.16 0.56 0.28 7464100 TAYLOR D 11/15/2007 7.5 0.063 UJ 0.16 0.063 U 7464089 TOP CK 11/14/2007 48 0.064 U 0.13 0.064 U 7464081 WENAS 11/15/2007 5.4 0.063 UJ 0.064 0.063 U 7464083 WIDE HOL 11/15/2007 22 0.062 UJ 1.2 0.33 7464103 WIDE REP 11/15/2007 - - 0.063 UJ 0.98 0.26 7464085 ZILLAH 11/14/2007 0.3 0.067 U 0.82 0.22 - - SATUS 302 standing water - - SELAH CR. dry - - COLD CR. dry 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 274 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 11/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.086 J 0.2 J AMON CK 11/13/2007 0.066 U 0.074 J 0.066 U 0.066 UJ 0.12 UJ CORRAL 11/13/2007 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.18 J COULEE DR 11/14/ 2007 0.063 U 0.46 J 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.067 UJ COWICHEE 11/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.12 J 0.30 J DID 7 11/13/2007 0.064 U 0.072 J 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.13 UJ DRAIN 31 11/13/2007 0.22 0.068 J 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ EAST TOP 11/14/2007 0.39 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.42 J 0.54 J GRANDVIEW 11/13/2007 0.29 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.09 UJ MARION 11/14/2007 0.067 U 0.89 J 0.067 U 0.078 J 0.11 UJ SATUS 303 11/13/2007 0.23 0.96 J 0.10 J 0.069 J 0.11 UJ SATUS CK 11/13/2007 0.066 U 2.2 J 0.066 U 0.15 J 0.14 UJ SELAH DC H 11/26/2007 0.20 UJ 0.49 UJ 0.10 UJ 0.75 J 1.3 SOUTH DR 11/13/2007 0.16 J 0.32 J 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.17 J SOUTH REP 11/13/2007 0.15 J 0.23 J 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.16 J SUB 35 11/14/2007 0.072 J 2.4 J 0.064 U 0.064 J 0.071 UJ TAYLOR D 11/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.084 J 0.3 J TOP CK 11/14/2007 0.064 U 0.48 J 0.064 U 0.076 J 0.25 J WENAS 11/15/2007 0.063 U 0.074 J 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.14 J WIDE HOL 11/15/2007 0.70 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.83 0.98 J 4.4 WIDE REP 11/15/2007 0.60 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.68 0.65 J 2.2 J ZILLAH 11/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.067 U 0.16 J 0.59 J SATUS 302 standing water SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 275 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 11/15/ 2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U AMON CK 11/13/2007 3.3 UJ 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U CORRAL 11/13/2007 3.2 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U COULEE DR 11/14/2007 3.2 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U COWICHEE 11/15/2007 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U DID 7 11/13/2007 3.2 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U DRAIN 31 11/13/2007 3.2 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U EAST TOP 11/14/2007 3.2 UJ 0.064 U 0.10 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANDVIEW 11/13/ 2007 3.2 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U MARION 11/14/2007 3.3 UJ 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U SATUS 303 11/13/2007 3.3 UJ 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U SATUS CK 11/13/2007 3.3 UJ 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U SELAH DC H 11/26/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U SOUTH DR 11/13/2007 3.2 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SOUTH REP 11/13/2007 3.1 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SUB 35 11/14/2007 3.2 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U TAYLOR D 11/15/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TOP CK 11/14/2007 3.2 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U WENAS 11/15/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIDE HOL 11/15/2007 3.1 U 0.062 J 0.062 U 0.072 J 0.062 U 0.062 U WIDE REP 11/15/2007 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U ZILLAH 11/14/2007 3.2 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U SATUS 302 standing water SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Oxychlordane Toxaphene CisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlo

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 276 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 11/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ AMON CK 11/13/2007 0.066 U 0.098 UJ 0.066 UJ 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 UJ CORRAL 11/13/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ COULEE DR 11/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ COWICHEE 11/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ DID 7 11/13/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ DRAIN 31 11/13/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ EAST TOP 11/14/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.49 0.064 U 0.07 UJ GRANDVIEW 11/13/2007 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 UJ MARION 11/14/2007 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 UJ 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 UJ SATUS 303 11/13/2007 0.14 0.16 J 0.066 UJ 0.085 0.066 U 0.066 UJ SATUS CK 11/13/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 UJ 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 UJ SELAH DC H 11/26/2007 0.063 U 0.099 UJ 0.097 UJ 0.30 UJ 0.063 U 0.091 J SOUTH DR 11/13/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ SOUTH REP 11/13/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ SUB 35 11/14/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ TAYLOR D 11/15/2007 0.063 U 0.12 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ TOP CK 11/14/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 UJ WENAS 11/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ WIDE HOL 11/15/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.36 J WIDE REP 11/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.27 J ZILLAH 11/14/2007 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 UJ 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.063 UJ SATUS 302 standing water SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry EndrinAlphaBHC BetaBHC DeltaBHC Lindane Aldrin

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 277 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 11/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U AMON CK 11/13/2007 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U CORRAL 11/13/2007 0.13 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U COULEE DR 11/14/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U COWICHEE 11/15/2007 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U DID 7 11/13/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U DRAIN 31 11/13/2007 0.18 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U EAST TOP 11/14/2007 0.16 UJ 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U GRANDVIEW 11/13/2007 0.092 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U MARION 11/14/2007 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U SATUS 303 11/13/2007 0.096 UJ 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U SATUS CK 11/13/2007 0.1 UJ 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U 0.066 U SELAH DC H 11/26/2007 0.84 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.2 UJ 0.063 U SOUTH DR 11/13/2007 0.064 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SOUTH REP 11/13/2007 0.067 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SUB 35 11/14/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U TAYLOR D 11/15/2007 0.21 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TOP CK 11/14/2007 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U WENAS 11/15/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WIDE HOL 11/15/2007 0.15 UJ 0.13 J 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.43 UJ WIDE REP 11/15/2007 0.13 UJ 0.075 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.35 UJ ZILLAH 11/14/2007 0.097 UJ 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U 0.067 U SATUS 302 standing water SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 278 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) AHTANUM 11/15/ 2007 0.25 UJ 3 2.6 219 AMON CK 11/13/2007 0.066 UJ 2 0.6 718 CORRAL 11/13/2007 0.086 UJ 3 1.8 545 COULEE DR 11/14/2007 0.063 UJ 3 3.5 306 COWICHEE 11/15/2007 0.45 UJ 2 1.2 345 DID 7 11/13/2007 0.22 UJ 8 10 627 DRAIN 31 11/13/2007 0.52 UJ 7 4.1 867 EAST TOP 11/14/2007 0.064 UJ 11 11 310 GRANDVIEW 11/13/ 2007 0.065 UJ 33 12 559 MARION 11/14/2007 0.067 UJ 10 7.3 360 SATUS 303 11/13/2007 0.24 UJ 1 U 1.0 1080 SATUS CK 11/13/2007 0.19 UJ 2 2.2 237 SELAH DC H 11/26/2007 0.063 UJ 73 28 696 SOUTH DR 11/13/2007 0.063 UJ 10 3.4 780 SOUTH REP 11/13/2007 0.10 UJ 10 4.4 780 SUB 35 11/14/2007 0.064 UJ 11 8.9 331 TAYLOR D 11/15/2007 0.33 UJ 3 2.6 432 TOP CK 11/14/2007 0.19 UJ 5 6.0 424 WENAS 11/15/2007 0.3 UJ 1 2.0 350 WIDE HOL 11/15/2007 0.35 UJ 5 2.2 517 WIDE REP 11/15/2007 0.39 UJ 4 2.7 517 ZILLAH 11/14/2007 0.067 UJ 7 5.0 498 SATUS 302 standing water SELAH CR. dry COLD CR. dry Methoxychlor Total Suspended Solids Conductivity Turbidity

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 279 Collection Flow Sample No. Field ID Date (cfs) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) 8074084 AHTANUM 2/11/2008 44 0.062 U 0.2 0.079 8074101 AMON CK 2/13/2008 9.6 0.065 U 0.085 0.065 U 8074099 CORRAL 2/13/2008 4.6 0.064 U 0.14 0.064 U 8074090 COU LEE DR 2/12/2008 <1 0.062 U 0.35 J 0.14 J 8074104 COWICHEE 2/11/2008 10.0 0.13 0.38 0.085 8074093 DID7 2/13/2008 3.6 0.065 U 0.52 0.1 J 8074097 DRAIN 31 2/13/2008 0.1 0.064 U 0.38 0.075 J 8074086 EAST TOP 2/12/2008 6.6 0.063 U 0.74 J 0.39 J 8074096 GRANDVIEW 2/13/2008 5.1 1.1 J 2.9 J 0.8 J 8074088 MARION 2/12/2008 179 0.061 U 0.5 J 0.14 J 8074094 SATUS 303 2/13/2008 1.3 0.063 U 0.33 0.063 U 8074091 SATUS CK 2/12/2008 352 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 8074080 SELAH CK 2/11/2008 1.7 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 U J 8074082 SELAH DCH 2/11/2008 1.3 0.25 1.4 0.74 8074092 SOUTH DR 2/13/2008 10 0.066 J 0.68 0.18 J 8074102 SOUTH REP 2/13/2008 - - 0.066 J 0.67 0.17 J 8074087 SUB 35 2/12/2008 20.9 0.28 J 1.4 J 1.1 J 8074100 TAYLOR D 2/11/2008 3.8 0.063 U 0.31 0.10 J 8074089 TOP CK 2/12/2008 112 0.063 U 0.11 0.063 U 8074081 WENAS 2/11/2008 2.5 0.065 U 0.15 0.065 U 8074083 WIDE HOL 2/12/2008 3.3 0.1 J 1.2 J 0.47 J 8074085 ZILLAH 2/12/2008 0.1 0.15 1.3 0.36 8074103 ZILLAH REP 2/12/2008 - - 0.09 0.79 0.21 - - COLD CR. dry - - WAUNA dry 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 280 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 2/11/2008 0.062 U 0.18 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.4 J AMON CK 2/13/2008 0.065 U 0.15 J 0.074 J 0.12 J 1.1 J CORRAL 2/13/2008 0.064 U 0.068 J 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.35 J COULEE DR 2/12/2008 0.062 U 1.1 0.11 0.062 U 0.17 J COWICHEE 2/11/2008 0.065 U 0.86 0.12 J 0.18 J 1.7 UJ DID7 2/13/2008 0.065 U 0.11 J 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.29 J DRAIN 31 2/13/2008 0.38 0.82 0.27 J 0.3 0.43 UJ EAST TOP 2/12/2008 0.29 1.7 0.063 U 0.33 J 0.48 J GRANDVIEW 2/13/2008 0.3 0.087 J 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.21 UJ MARION 2/12/2008 0.061 U 0.86 0.072 0.061 U 0.13 J SATUS 303 2/13/2008 0.27 0.79 J 0.17 0.11 J 1.5 UJ SATUS CK 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.14 J 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.26 J SELAH CK 2/11/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.48 UJ 0.39 UJ 8.7 J SELAH DCH 2/11/2008 0.88 J 0.063 U 1.2 J 1.4 J 2.7 J SOUTH DR 2/13/2008 0.12 0.21 J 0.078 J 0.063 U 0.41 J SOUTH REP 2/13/2008 0.13 0.15 J 0.075 J 0.064 U 0.39 J SUB 35 2/12/2008 0.061 U 1.2 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.1 J TAYLOR D 2/11/2008 0.33 J 1.2 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.88 J TOP CK 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.53 J 0.084 J 0.063 U 0.54 J WENAS 2/11/2008 0.35 J 0.72 J 0.4 UJ 0.22 J 1.1 J WIDE HOL 2/12/2008 1.0 J 0.55 J 2.2 J 2 J 13 J ZILLAH 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.56 0.063 J 0.15 1.1 ZILLAH REP 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.34 0.063 U 0.078 J 0.36 J COLD CR. dry WAUNA dry Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 281 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 2/11/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U AMON CK 2/13/2008 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U CORRAL 2/13/2008 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U COULEE DR 2/12/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U COWICHEE 2/11/2008 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U DID7 2/13/2008 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U DRAIN 31 2/13/2008 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U EAST TOP 2/12/2008 3.1 U 0.094 UJ 0.063 U 0.71 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANDVIEW 2/13/2008 3.1 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U MARION 2/12/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS 303 2/13/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SATUS CK 2/12/2008 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SELAH CK 2/11/2008 3.1 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ SELAH DCH 2/11/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SOUTH DR 2/13/2008 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SOUTH REP 2/13/2008 3.2 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U SUB 35 2/12/2008 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U TAYLOR D 2/11/2008 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TOP CK 2/12/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WENAS 2/11/2008 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U WIDE HOL 2/12/2008 3.2 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U ZILLAH 2/12/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U ZILLAH REP 2/12/2008 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U COLD CR. dry WAUNA dry Oxychlordane Toxaphene CisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 282 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 2/11/2008 0.062 U 0.063 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.064 UJ 0.062 U AMON CK 2/13/2008 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.13 UJ 0.099 UJ CORRAL 2/13/2008 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.087 0.064 U COULEE DR 2/12/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.21 UJ 0.062 U COWICHEE 2/11/2008 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.58 UJ 0.14 UJ DID7 2/13/2008 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.12 UJ 0.065 U DRAIN 31 2/13/2008 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U EAST TOP 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.064 UJ 0.27 UJ 0.07 UJ GRANDVIEW 2/13/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.28 0.062 U MARION 2/12/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.067 UJ 0.061 U SATUS 303 2/13/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.10 UJ 0.19 UJ SATUS CK 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.12 UJ 0.063 U SELAH CK 2/11/2008 0.085 J 0.061 J 0.061 UJ 0.075 J 1.6 UJ 2.7 UJ SELAH DCH 2/11/2008 0.063 U 0.079 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.14 UJ 0.12 UJ SOUTH DR 2/13/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.17 UJ 0.068 SOUTH REP 2/13/2008 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.17 UJ 0.064 U SUB 35 2/12/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U TAYLOR D 2/11/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.83 UJ 0.15 UJ TOP CK 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.27 UJ 0.063 U WENAS 2/11/2008 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.99 UJ 0.37 WIDE HOL 2/12/2008 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.11 UJ 0.41 J ZILLAH 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.064 UJ 0.063 U ZILLAH REP 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U COLD CR. dry WAUNA dry EndrinAlphaBHC BetaBHC DeltaBHC Lindane Aldrin

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 283 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) AHTANUM 2/11/2008 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U AMON CK 2/13/2008 0.13 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U CORRAL 2/13/2008 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U COULEE DR 2/12/2008 0.062 U 0.15 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U COWICHEE 2/11/2008 0.065 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U DID7 2/13/2008 0.065 U 0.069 UJ 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.065 U DRAIN 31 2/13/2008 0.11 UJ 0.23 UJ 0.064 U 0.11 UJ 0.064 U EAST TOP 2/12/2008 0.18 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U GRANDVIEW 2/13/2008 0.069 UJ 0.071 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.062 U MARION 2/12/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U SATUS 303 2/13/2008 0.21 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SATUS CK 2/12/2008 0.081 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SELAH CK 2/11/2008 1.9 UJ 1.9 UJ 0.061 UJ 2.0 UJ 0.093 UJ SELAH DCH 2/11/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.57 UJ 0.063 U SOUTH DR 2/13/2008 0.063 U 0.074 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SOUTH REP 2/13/2008 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U 0.064 U SUB 35 2/12/2008 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U TAYLOR D 2/11/2008 1.4 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U TOP CK 2/12/2008 0.063 U 0.13 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U WENAS 2/11/2008 0.31 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.065 U 0.17 UJ 0.065 U WIDE HOL 2/12/2008 0.081 UJ 0.20 J 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.61 J ZILLAH 2/12/2008 0.15 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U ZILLAH REP 2/12/2008 0.09 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U COLD CR. dry WAUNA dry Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 284 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) AHTANUM 2/11/2008 0.062 UJ 12 7.8 205 AMON CK 2/13/2008 0.075 UJ 32 10 759 CORRAL 2/13/2008 0.15 UJ 9 4.3 579 COULEE DR 2/12/2008 0.062 UJ 8 5.4 298 COWICHEE 2/11/2008 0.065 UJ 9 8.1 188 DID7 2/13/2008 0.094 UJ 5 3.9 625 DRAIN 31 2/13/2008 0.58 UJ 2 2.2 834 EAST TOP 2/12/2008 0.64 UJ 12 6.8 296 GRANDVIEW 2/13/2008 1.3 J 8 4.1 593 MARION 2/12/2008 0.061 UJ 19 7.4 376 SATUS 303 2/13/2008 1.4 UJ 1 U 0.5 1080 SATUS CK 2/12/2008 0.25 UJ 19 7.9 123 SELAH CK 2/11/2008 1.8 UJ 30 39 210 SELAH DCH 2/11/2008 1.0 UJ 30 9.7 681 SOUTH DR 2/13/2008 0.063 UJ 4 4.4 766 SOUTH REP 2/13/2008 0.064 UJ 5 3.1 768 SUB 35 2/12/2008 0.061 UJ 23 9.7 350 TAYLOR D 2/11/2008 0.063 UJ 3 3.4 540 TOP CK 2/12/2008 0.063 UJ 10 7.9 338 WENAS 2/11/2008 0.66 UJ 7 6.5 281 WIDE HOL 2/12/2008 0.17 UJ 2 1.0 540 ZILLAH 2/12/2008 0.16 UJ 4 2.8 530 ZILLAH REP 2/12/2008 0.063 UJ 4 2.6 534 COLD CR. dry WAUNA dry Methoxychlor Total Suspended Solids Turbidity Conductivity

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 285 

## Appendix L. Washington State Department of Health Fish Consumption Advisory

You are here: DOH Home » News Releases Home » 09-075 Search | Employees



### For immediate release: April 30, 2009 (09-075)

Contacts: Dave McBride , Environmental Health Assessments 360-236-3176 Allison Cook , Communications Office 360-236-4022


### Yakima River fish consumption advisory lifted due to lower DDT levels Other fish will be added due to increased PCB monitoring and detection

OLYMPIA

 Dropping levels of DDT found in fish in the Yakima River have led state health officials to drop advisories to limit meals from cer tain fish species from the river. Recent data on PCBs, though, has resulted in new advice on eating common carp from the Yakima.

Since 1993 the Department of Health has reco mmended people eat no more than one meal a week of bottom fish from the Yakima River to a void DDT exposure. At that time, DDT levels in Yakima River bottom fish were among the highest reported in the nation. The advisory was for largescale and bridgelip sucker , mountain whitefish, channel catfish, northern pikeminnow, and common carp. DDT is a pesticide that was used in agriculture; its use was banned in the 1970s.

A Department of Ecology study completed in 2007 found erosion control proj ects put in place by Yakima basin irrigators helped reduce DDT and its byproducts in fish from the Yakima River. The state health department evaluated the new da ta and determined the fish advisories based on DDT levels are no longer needed. The declining le vels of DDT in resident bottom fish from the river, along with proper cleani ng and cooking, allow people to eat them safely without limits.

"Fish is an excellent low-fat food and a great so urce of protein, vitamins, and minerals," said State Health Officer Dr. Ma xine Hayes. "It’s important to include a variety of fish as part of a healthy diet. And while the news on DDT in Yaki ma River fish is good, we recently learned that PCBs in carp from the lower Yakima are high enough to warrant a meal limit. This is especially true for young children and women who might one day become pregnant."

"Yakima Valley irrigators really stepped up and deserve recogn ition for tackling a tough problem on one of Washington’s great ri vers," said Department of Ec ology Director Jay Manning. "Like most watersheds, there’s more work to be done , but this community ha s shown it can take on these types of challenges."

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 286 Data from the Ecology fish tissue study showed PCB levels in common carp in the lower section of the river indicate a need for a limit of one meal per week. Th is advisory includes carp taken from the lower Yakima River from the city of Prosser to the mouth near Richland.

PCB levels for other species sampled throughout th e river system were be low levels of health concern for people. Meanwhile, the statewide mercury advisory for wo men who are or might become pregnant, nursing mothers, and young childre n remains in effect. State health officials advise people in these groups not to eat nor thern pikeminnow, and to limit largemouth and smallmouth bass to two meals per month.

PCBs and mercury are long-lasting chemicals that are found worldwide. They can cause behavior and learning de ficits in children exposed in th e womb. Banned since 1977, PCBs were used as insulating fluid in el ectrical transformers, lubrican ts, and hydraulic fluids. Mercury occurs naturally but also comes from coal-fir ed electric plants and improper disposal of fluorescent bulbs, thermometers, thermo stats, and electrical switches.

To reduce your exposure to PCBs in common carp from the Yakima River, the Department of Health recommends you:

 Limit your consumption of common carp caught from Prosser to the mouth of the river near Richland to no more than one meal per week.

 Cook and clean fish to reduce contaminants; rem ove fat, skin, and organs and allow fat to drip off during cooking. Filleting reduces PCB, but not mercury contamination.

Learn more about the Yakima River fish advi sory, other fish consumption advisories, and healthy fish choices (www.doh.wa.gov/fish/) on the stat e health department Web site.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 287 

## Appendix M. SPMD Data, 2007-08

Appendix M-1. SPMD Data for Spring 2007.

Sample No. Field ID Residue in SPMD (ng/sample) Water Column Concentration (ng/L, dissolved) Toxaphene Total PCBs Toxaphene Total PCBs 7234180 EASTON 50 UJ 95 J 0.077 UJ 0.084 U 7234181 EASTON BLANK 50 UJ 148 J - - J 7234182 TOWNE DIV 50 UJ 159 J 0.095 UJ 0.12 J 7244015 WILSON CR † 332 J 124 J 0.50 J 0.007 J 7234184 ROZA DAM 100 J 165 J 0.19 J 0.018 J 7234185 NACHES R 73 J 257 J 0.11 J 0.063 J 7234186 MOXEE 470 198 J 0.71 0.024 J 7234187 SUNNYSIDE 150 J 187 J 0.23 J 0.020 J 7234188 GRANGER 550 J 338 J 0.84 J 0.095 J 7234189 SULPHUR 1,900 J 418 J 2.96 J 0.16 J 7234190 SULPHUR REP 1,700 J 532 J 2.73 J 0.27 J 7234191 SULPHUR BLANK 50 U 150 J - - - - 7234192 PROSSER 200 194 J 0.30 0.021 J 7234193 PROSSER REP 210 J 268 J 0.33 J 0.075 J 7234194 SPRING CR 270 J 198 J 0.42 J 0.024 J 7234195 HORN RAPIDS 240 246 J 0.36 0.045 J

Note: Dissolved PCB concentrations calculated after subtracting average field blank residue (149 ng). *Laboratory blank for SPMD preparation prior to field deployment. † Collected Spring 2008. U = not detected. UJ = not detected, reporting limit is an estimate. J= estimated concentration.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 288 Appendix M-2. SPMD Data for Winter 2007.

Sample

No. Field ID Residue in SPMD Water Column Concentration (ng/sample) (ng/L, dissolved) Toxaphene Total PCBs Toxaphene Total PCBs 7484250 EASTON 50 U 136 J 0.083 U 0.11 J 7484251 EASTON BLANK 50 UJ 104 J - - - -
7484252 TOWNE DIV 50 U 152 J 0.084 U 0.13 J 7484253 WILSON CR 78 J 128 J 0.12 J 0.084 J 7484254 ROZA DAM 50 U 120 J 0.081 U 0.086 J 7484255 NACHES R 50 UJ 119 J 0.084 UJ 0.099 J 7484256 MOXEE 88 J 146 J 0.14 J 0.11 J 7484257 SUNNYSIDE 66 J 116 J 0.10 J 0.065 J 7484258 GRANGER 190 J 249 J 0.30 J 0.15 J 7484259 SULPHUR 452 J 191 J 0.68 J 0.084 J 7484260 SULPHUR BLANK 50 UJ 108 J - - - -
7484261 PROSSER 86 J 104 J 0.13 J 0.056 J 7484262 PROSSER REP 86 J 132 J 0.13 J 0.053 J 7484263 SPRING CR 110 J 138 J 0.19 J 0.12 J 7484264 HORN RAPIDS 68 J 124 J 0.10 J 0.063 J

Note: Dissolved PCB concentrations calculated after subtracting average field blank residue (106 ng). *Laboratory blank for SPMD preparation prior to field deployment. U = not detected. UJ = not detected, reporting limit is an estimate. J= estimated concentration.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 289 

## Appendix N. Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Data, 2007-08

Collection Flow Sample No. Field ID Date (mgd) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) 7248002 CLE ELUM WP 6/12/2007 0.460 na na na 7248001 ELLENSBURG WP 6/12/2007 3.69 na na na 7248014 ELLENSBURG REP 6/12/2007 - - na na na 7248000 KITTITAS WP 6/12/2007 0.212 na na na 7238100 SELAH WP 6/7/2007 1.05 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 7238101 NACHES WP 6/7/2007 0.101 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 7238102 COWICHE WP 6/7/2007 0.176 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 7238103 YAKIMA WP 6/7/2007 11.9 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 7238118 YAKIMA REP 6/7/2007 - - 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 7248003 MOXEE WP 6/12/2007 0.175 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 7248004 BUENA WP 6/12/2007 0.750 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 7248005 ZILLAH WP 6/12/2007 0.240 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 7248006 GRANGER WP 6/12/2007 0.178 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 7248007 SUNNYSIDE WP 6/12/2007 1.07 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 7248008 SS PORT WP 6/12/2007 0.534 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 7248009 MABTON WP 6/12/2007 0.110 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 7248010 GRANDVIEW WP 6/12/2007 1.75 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 7248011 PROSSER WP 6/14/2007 0.918 2.2 UJ 2.2 UJ 2.2 UJ 7248012 BENTONC WP 6/14/2007 0.185 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 7248013 W RICHLAND 6/14/2007 0.581 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 7248015 TRNSFR BLANK 6/12/2007 - - 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ

7388847 CLE ELUM WP 9/18/2007 0.380 na na na 7388846 ELLENSBURG WP 9/18/2007 2.54 na na na 7388845 KITTITAS WP 9/18/2007 0.252 na na na 7388848 SELAH WP 9/20/2007 1.05 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 7388849 NACHES WP 9/20/2007 0.112 5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 7388850 COWICHE WP 9/20/2007 0.165 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 7388851 YAKIMA WP 9/20/2007 12.8 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 7398827 MOXEE WP 9/25/2007 0.170 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 7398828 BUENA WP 9/25/2007 0.080 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 7398829 ZILLAH WP 9/25/2007 0.222 5.3 U 5.3 UJ 5.3 U 7398830 GRANGER WP 9/25/2007 0.193 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 7398834 SUNNYSIDE WP 9/25/2007 1.16 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 7398839 SUNYSIDE REP 9/25/2007 - - 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 7398835 SS PORT WP 9/25/2007 1.39 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 7398837 MABTON WP 9/25/2007 0.114 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 7398836 GRANDVIEW WP 9/25/2007 1.42 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 7398831 PROSSER WP 9/27/2007 0.956 5.3 UJ 5.3 UJ 5.3 UJ 7398832 BENTON WP 9/27/2007 0.189 5.4 UJ 5.4 UJ 5.4 UJ 7398833 W RICHLAND 9/27/2007 0.956 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ 7398838 W RICHLAND REP 9/27/2007 - - 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ 7398840 TRNSFR BLANK na na na 7'398841 BOTTLE BLNK na na na 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 290 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CLE ELUM WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na ELLENSBURG REP 6/12/2007 na na na na na KITTITAS WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na SELAH WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.7 J NACHES WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 3.5 J COWICHE WP 6/7/2007 2.0 U 8.7 J 2.0 U 12 29 J YAKIMA WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U 5.3 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U YAKIMA REP 6/7/2007 2.1 U 6.1 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U MOXEE WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 3.2 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.7 J BUENA WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.2 J 2.0 U 2.0 U 6.7 J ZILLAH WP 6/12/2007 2.1 U 4.2 2.1 U 2.1 U 5.4 J GRANGER WP 6/12/2007 2.1 U 4.1 2.1 U 2.1 U 8.0 J SUNNYSIDE WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 J 2.0 U 2.0 U 4.5 J SS PORT WP 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.5 J MABTON WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.4 J 2.0 U 2.0 U 6.7 J GRANDVIEW WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2 U 2 U 2.0 U 2.0 J PROSSER WP 6/14/2007 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U BENTONC WP 6/14/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 3.3 J W RICHLAND 6/14/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U TRNSFR BLANK 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 U

CLE ELUM WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na KITTITAS WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na SELAH WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U NACHES WP 9/20/2007 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U COWICHE WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 33 12 YAKIMA WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U 7.2 UJ 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U MOXEE WP 9/25/2007 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ BUENA WP 9/25/2007 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 U ZILLAH WP 9/25/2007 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 16 GRANGER WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 7.1 SUNNYSIDE WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 8.3 SUNYSIDE REP 9/25/2007 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.8 J SS PORT WP 9/25/2007 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ MABTON WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 8.4 GRANDVIEW WP 9/25/2007 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 U PROSSER WP 9/27/2007 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U BENTON WP 9/27/2007 5.4 U 5.4 U 5.4 U 5.4 U 5.4 U W RICHLAND 9/27/2007 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U W RICHLAND REP 9/27/2007 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U TRNSFR BLANK na na na na na BOTTLE BLNK na na na na na Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 291 U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment Field ID Collection Date CLE ELUM WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na ELENSBURG WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na ELENSBRG REP 6/12/2007 na na na na na KITTITAS WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na SELAH WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 UJ NACHES WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 UJ COWICHE WP 6/7/2007 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 UJ YAKIMA WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 UJ YAKIMA REP 6/7/2007 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 UJ MOXEE WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 UJ BUENA WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 UJ ZILLAH WP 6/12/2007 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 UJ GRANGER WP 6/12/2007 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 UJ SUNNYSIDE WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 UJ SS PORT WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 UJ MABTON WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 UJ GRANDVIEW WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 U J 2.0 UJ PROSSER WP 6/14/2007 2.2 U J 2.2 U J 2.2 U J 2.2 U J 2.2 UJ BENTONC WP 6/14/2007 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 UJ W RICHLAND WP 6/14/2007 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 U J 2.1 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 U

CLE ELUM WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na ELENSBURG WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na KITTITAS WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na SELAH WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 UJ NACHES WP 9/20/2007 5.0 U J 5.0 U J 5.0 U J 5.0 U J 5.0 UJ COWICHE WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 UJ YAKIMA WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 UJ MOXEE WP 9/25/2007 4.9 U J 4.9 U J 4.9 U J 4.9 U J 4.9 UJ BUENA WP 9/25/2007 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 UJ ZILLAH WP 9/25/2007 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U GRANGER WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U SUNNYSIDE WP 9/25/ 2007 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 UJ SUNYSIDE REP 9/25/2007 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 UJ SS PORT WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 U J 5.1 UJ MABTON WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U GRANDVIEW WP 9/25/ 2007 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 U J 5.2 UJ PROSSER WP 9/27/2007 5.3 U J 5.3 U J 5.3 U J 5.3 U J 5.3 UJ BENTON WP 9/27/2007 5.4 U J 5.4 U J 5.4 U J 5.4 U J 5.4 UJ W RICHLAND WP 9/27/2007 5.5 U J 5.5 U J 5.5 U J 5.5 U J 5.5 UJ W RICHLAND REP 9/27/2007 5.5 U J 5.5 U J 5.5 U J 5.5 U J 5.5 UJ TRNSFR BLANK na na na na na BOTTLE BLANK na na na na na Cis-Nonachlor (ng/L) Trans-Chlordane (ng/L) Trans-Nonachlor (ng/L) Oxychlordane (ng/L) Cis-Chlordane (ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 292 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CLE ELUM WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG REP 6/12/2007 na na na na na na KITTITAS WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na na SELAH WP 6/7/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ NACHES WP 6/7/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ COWICHE WP 6/7/2007 25.0 UJ 25 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ YAKIMA WP 6/7/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ YAKIMA REP 6/7/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.1 UJ 3.0 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ MOXEE WP 6/12/2007 25.0 UJ 25 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ BUENA WP 6/12/2007 25.0 UJ 25 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ ZILLAH WP 6/12/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ GRANGER WP 6/12/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ SUNNYSIDE WP 6/12/2007 25.0 UJ 25 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ SS PORT WP 6/12/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ MABTON WP 6/12/2007 25.0 UJ 25 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ GRANDVIEW WP 6/12/2007 25.0 UJ 25 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ PROSSER WP 6/14/2007 27.0 UJ 27 UJ 2.2 UJ 2.2 UJ 2.2 UJ 2.2 UJ BENTONC WP 6/14/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ W RICHLAND 6/14/2007 26.0 UJ 26 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ TRNSFR BLANK 6/12/2007 25.0 UJ 25 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ

CLE ELUM WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na na KITTITAS WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na na SELAH WP 9/20/2007 na 26 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ NACHES WP 9/20/2007 na 25 UJ 5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ COWICHE WP 9/20/2007 na 25 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ YAKIMA WP 9/20/2007 na 26 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ MOXEE WP 9/25/2007 na 25 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ BUENA WP 9/25/2007 na 26 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ ZILLAH WP 9/25/2007 na 26 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 UJ 5.3 U GRANGER WP 9/25/2007 na 25 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U SUNNYSIDE WP 9/25/2007 na 26 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ SUNYSIDE REP 9/25/2007 na 26 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ SS PORT WP 9/25/2007 na 26 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ MABTON WP 9/25/2007 na 26 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U GRANDVIEW WP 9/25/2007 na 26 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ 5.2 UJ PROSSER WP 9/27/2007 na 26 UJ 5.3 UJ 5.3 UJ 5.3 UJ 5.3 UJ BENTON WP 9/27/2007 na 27 UJ 5.4 UJ 5.4 UJ 5.4 UJ 5.4 UJ W RICHLAND 9/27/2007 na 27 UJ 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ W RICHLAND REP 9/27/2007 na 27 UJ 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ 5.5 UJ TRNSFR BLANK na na na na na na BOTTLE BLNK na na na na na na Chlordane (technical) Toxaphene AlphaBHC Beta-BHC Delta-BHC Lindane

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 293 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CLE ELUM WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG REP 6/12/2007 na na na na na na KITTITAS WP 6/12/2007 na na na na na na SELAH WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U NACHES WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U COWICHE WP 6/7/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U YAKIMA WP 6/7/2007 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U YAKIMA REP 6/7/2007 2.1 U 2.2 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U MOXEE WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U BUENA WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U ZILLAH WP 6/12/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U GRANGER WP 6/12/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U SUNNYSIDE WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U SS PORT WP 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ MABTON WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U GRANDVIEW WP 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U PROSSER WP 6/14/2007 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 UJ 2.2 U 2.2 UJ 2.2 U BENTONC WP 6/14/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U W RICHLAND 6/14/2007 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.1 U TRNSFR BLANK 6/12/2007 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 2.0 UJ 2.0 U

CLE ELUM WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na na KITTITAS WP 9/18/2007 na na na na na na SELAH WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U NACHES WP 9/20/2007 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 UJ 5.0 U COWICHE WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U YAKIMA WP 9/20/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U MOXEE WP 9/25/2007 4.9 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ BUENA WP 9/25/2007 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 UJ 5.2 U 5.2 UJ 5.2 U ZILLAH WP 9/25/2007 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 UJ 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U GRANGER WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U SUNNYSIDE WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U SUNYSIDE REP 9/25/2007 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 UJ 5.2 U 5.2 UJ 5.2 U SS PORT WP 9/25/2007 5.1 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ MABTON WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 5.1 U 5.1 U GRANDVIEW WP 9/25/2007 5.2 U 5.2 U 5.2 UJ 5.2 U 5.2 UJ 5.2 U PROSSER WP 9/27/2007 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 UJ 5.3 U BENTON WP 9/27/2007 5.4 U 5.4 U 5.4 U 5.4 U 5.4 UJ 5.4 U W RICHLAND 9/27/2007 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 UJ 5.5 U W RICHLAND REP 9/27/2007 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 U 5.5 UJ 5.5 U TRNSFR BLANK na na na na na na BOTTLE BLNK na na na na na na Aldrin Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Endrin Aldehyde Endrin

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 294 U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (pg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) CLE ELUM WP 6/12/2007 na na 719 J 5 2.7 412 ELLENSBURG WP 6/12/ 2007 na na 192 J 4 1.8 381 ELLENSBURG REP 6/12/ 2007 na na 97 J 4 1.9 382 KITTITAS WP 6/12/2007 na na 42 J 3 1.7 439 SELAH WP 6/7/2007 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 7,360 7 2.9 849 NACHES WP 6/7/2007 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 40 UJ 2 2.1 298 COWICHE WP 6/7/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 40 UJ 1 1.5 685 YAKIMA WP 6/7/2007 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 798 J 5 3.7 536 YAKIMA REP 6/7/2007 2.1 UJ 2.1 U na 5 3.0 534 MOXEE WP 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 47 J 3 2.1 588 BUENA WP 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 285 J 7 3.8 743 ZILLAH WP 6/12/2007 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 403 J 10 4.5 1100 GRANGER WP 6/12/2007 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 253 J 2 1.5 726 SUNNYSIDE WP 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 747 J 2 1.1 801 SS PORT WP 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 601 J 555 190 2440 MABTON WP 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 UJ 31 J 5 1.7 857 GRANDVIEW WP 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 50 UJ 23 8.9 1080 PROSSER WP 6/14/2007 2.2 UJ 2.2 U 406 J 7 4.0 914 BENTONC WP 6/14/2007 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 44 J 2 1.2 1260 W RICHLAND 6/14/2007 2.1 UJ 2.1 U 97 J 3 1.6 963 TRNSFR BLANK 6/12/2007 2.0 UJ 2.0 U 115 J na na na

CLE ELUM WP 9/18/2007 na na 262 J 2 1.7 330 ELLENSBURG WP 9/18/ 2007 na na 318 J 2 1.6 374 KITTITAS WP 9/18/2007 na na 143 J 2 0.9 432 SELAH WP 9/20/2007 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 246 J 11 4.0 868 NACHES WP 9/20/2007 5.0 UJ 5.0 U 245 J 14 4.4 304 COWICHE WP 9/20/2007 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 276 J 1 1.4 684 YAKIMA WP 9/20/2007 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 856 J 7 4.0 515 MOXEE WP 9/25/2007 4.9 UJ 4.9 UJ 387 J 5 3.8 620 BUENA WP 9/25/2007 5.2 UJ 5.2 U 288 J 2 1.9 740 ZILLAH WP 9/25/2007 5.3 U 5.3 U 223 J 3 1.9 1190 GRANGER WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 226 J 2 1.2 709 SUNNYSIDE WP 9/25/2007 5.1 UJ 5.1 U 475 J 2 1.5 830 SUNYSIDE REP 9/25/2007 5.2 UJ 5.2 U 523 J 2 1.5 828 SS PORT WP 9/25/2007 5.1 UJ 5.1 163 J 77 22 3160 MABTON WP 9/25/2007 5.1 U 5.1 U 304 J 3 2.1 672 GRANDVIEW WP 9/25/2007 5.2 UJ 5.2 U 153 J 65 3.3 1140 PROSSER WP 9/27/2007 5.3 UJ 5.3 U 375 J 6 3.6 987 BENTON WP 9/27/2007 5.4 UJ 6.8 UJ 335 J 2 1.2 1240 W RICHLAND 9/27/2007 5.5 UJ 5.5 U 319 J 6 3.1 1010 W RICHLAND REP 9/27/2007 5.5 UJ 7.7 UJ 203 J 6 2.0 1010 TRNSFR BLANK na na 10 UJ na na na BOTTLE BLNK na na 133 J na na naHexachlorobenzene Methoxychlor T-PCBs Total Suspended

Solids Turbidity Conductivity

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 295 Collection Flow Sample No. Field ID Date (mgd) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) 7508100 CLE ELUM WP 12/13/2007 0.471 na na na 7508102 ELLENSBURG WP 12/13/2007 3.239 na na na 7508101 KITTITAS WP 12/13/2007 0.142 na na na 7508103 SELAH WP 12/13/2007 1.347 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7508107 SELAH REP 12/13/2007 - - 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 7508104 NACHES WP 12/12/2007 0.0697 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7508105 COWICHE WP 12/12/2007 0.1057 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 7508106 YAKIMA WP 12/12/2007 9.82 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 7518105 MOXEE WP 12/18/2007 0.1515 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7518103 BUENA WP 12/18/2007 0.080 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 7518104 ZILLAH WP 12/18/2007 0.2522 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7518106 GRANGER WP 12/18/2007 0.171 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7518107 SUNNYSIDE WP 12/18/2007 1.100 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 7518108 SS PORT WP 12/18/2007 0.3097 REJ REJ REJ 7518110 MABTON WP 12/18/2007 0.175 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 7518109 GRANDVIEW WP 12/18/2007 1.41 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7518114 GRANDVIEW 12/18/2007 - - 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7518111 PROSSER WP 12/20/2007 0.565 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 7518112 BENTONC WP 12/20/2007 0.230 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 7518113 W RICHLAND 12/20/2007 0.549 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 7518116 BOTTLE BLNK 12/18/2007 - - 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 7518115 TRNSFR BLANK 12/18/2007 - - 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

8118825 CLE ELUM WP 3/11/2008 1.315 na na na 8118827 ELLENSBURG WP 3/11/2008 2.750 na na na 8118826 KITTITAS WP 3/11/2008 0.129 na na na 8118828 SELAH WP 3/11/2008 1.132 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8118829 NACHES WP 3/13/2008 0.054 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8118830 COWICHE WP 3/13/2008 0.211 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 8118831 YAKIMA WP 3/13/2008 9.240 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 8118832 YAKIMA REP 3/13/2008 - - 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128840 MOXEE WP 3/18/2008 0.151 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128838 BUENA WP 3/18/2008 0.074 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128839 ZILLAH WP 3/18/2008 0.215 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 8128841 GRANGER WP 3/18/2008 0.172 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128842 SUNNYSIDE WP 3/18/2008 1.067 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128843 SS PORT WP 3/18/2008 0.538 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 8128845 MABTON WP 3/18/2008 1.270 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 8128844 GRANDVIEW WP 3/18/2008 1.080 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128846 PROSSER WP 3/20/2008 0.652 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 8128849 PROSSER REP 3/20/2008 - - 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128847 BENTONC WP 3/20/2008 0.225 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128848 W RICHLAND 3/20/2008 0.523 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8128850 TRNSFR BLANK 3/20/2008 - - 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 8128851 BOTTLE BLANK 3/20/2008 na na na 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 296 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CLE ELUM WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na KITTITAS WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na SELAH WP 12/13/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 3.1 6.1 SELAH REP 12/13/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.9 6.3 NACHES WP 12/12/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U COWICHE WP 12/12/2007 2.6 U 6.7 J 2.9 J 25 21 YAKIMA WP 12/12/2007 2.7 U 3.3 J 2.7 U 5.4 4.4 J MOXEE WP 12/18/2007 2.5 U 3.7 J 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U BUENA WP 12/18/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 4.5 J ZILLAH WP 12/18/2007 2.5 U 3.7 2.5 U 2.5 U 6.7 J GRANGER WP 12/18/2007 2.5 U 5.7 J 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U SUNNYSIDE WP 12/18/2007 2.6 U 4.8 J 2.6 U 2.6 U 6.2 J SS PORT WP 12/18/2007 REJ REJ REJ REJ REJ MABTON WP 12/18/2007 2.7 U 2.7 J 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U GRANDVIEW WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 3.2 J GRANDVIEW 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 3.1 J PROSSER WP 12/20/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U BENTONC WP 12/20/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U W RICHLAND 12/20/2007 2.6 U 2.6 J 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U BOTTLE BLNK 12/18/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U TRNSFR BLANK 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

CLE ELUM WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na KITTITAS WP 3/11/2008 na na na NA na SELAH WP 3/11/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 4.8 J NACHES WP 3/13/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U COWICHE WP 3/13/2008 2.5 U 3.6 J 6.3 32 17 YAKIMA WP 3/13/2008 2.5 UJ 3.9 J 38 J 7.8 J 4.5 J YAKIMA REP 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 37 J 8.0 J 5.2 J MOXEE WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BUENA WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ ZILLAH WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ GRANGER WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ SUNNYSIDE WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 11 J 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ SS PORT WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ MABTON WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 9.5 J 3.3 J 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ GRANDVIEW WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ PROSSER WP 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ PROSSER REP 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BENTONC WP 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ W RICHLAND 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ TRNSFR BLANK 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BOTTLE BLANK 3/20/2008 na na na na na Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 297 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CLE ELUM WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na KITTITAS WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na SELAH WP 12/13/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ SELAH REP 12/13/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ NACHES WP 12/12/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ COWICHE WP 12/12/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ YAKIMA WP 12/12/2007 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ MOXEE WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ BUENA WP 12/18/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ ZILLAH WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ GRANGER WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ SUNNYSIDE WP 12/18/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ SS PORT WP 12/18/2007 REJ REJ REJ REJ REJ MABTON WP 12/18/2007 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ GRANDVIEW WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ GRANDVIEW 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ PROSSER WP 12/20/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BENTONC WP 12/20/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ W RICHLAND 12/20/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BOTTLE BLNK 12/18/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U TRNSFR BLANK 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

CLE ELUM WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na KITTITAS WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na SELAH WP 3/11/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U NACHES WP 3/13/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U COWICHE WP 3/13/2008 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U YAKIMA WP 3/13/2008 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U YAKIMA REP 3/13/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U MOXEE WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U BUENA WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U ZILLAH WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ GRANGER WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U SUNNYSIDE WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U SS PORT WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ MABTON WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ GRANDVIEW WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U PROSSER WP 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ PROSSER REP 3/20/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U BENTONC WP 3/20/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U W RICHLAND 3/20/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U TRNSFR BLANK 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BOTTLE BLANK 3/20/2008 na na na na naCisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor Oxychlordane

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 298 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CLE ELUM WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na na KITTITAS WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na na SELAH WP 12/13/2007 na 25 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ SELAH REP 12/13/2007 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ NACHES WP 12/12/2007 na 25 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ COWICHE WP 12/12/2007 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ YAKIMA WP 12/12/2007 na 27 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ MOXEE WP 12/18/2007 na 25 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ BUENA WP 12/18/2007 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ ZILLAH WP 12/18/2007 na 25 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ GRANGER WP 12/18/2007 na 25 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ SUNNYSIDE WP 12/18/2007 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ SS PORT WP 12/18/2007 na REJ REJ REJ REJ REJ MABTON WP 12/18/2007 na 27 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ GRANDVIEW WP 12/18/2007 na 25 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ GRANDVIEW 12/18/2007 na 25 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ PROSSER WP 12/20/2007 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BENTONC WP 12/20/2007 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ W RICHLAND 12/20/2007 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BOTTLE BLNK 12/18/2007 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U TRNSFR BLANK 12/18/2007 na 25 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

CLE ELUM WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na na KITTITAS WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na na SELAH WP 3/11/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 2.6 U NACHES WP 3/13/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 2.6 U COWICHE WP 3/13/2008 na 25 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 13 U 2.5 U YAKIMA WP 3/13/2008 na 25 U 2.5 U 7.6 UJ 13 U 11 YAKIMA REP 3/13/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 7.3 UJ 13 U 15 MOXEE WP 3/18/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 2.6 U BUENA WP 3/18/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 2.6 U ZILLAH WP 3/18/2008 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 13 UJ 2.6 UJ GRANGER WP 3/18/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 2.6 U SUNNYSIDE WP 3/18/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 7.4 SS PORT WP 3/18/2008 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 13 UJ 2.6 UJ MABTON WP 3/18/2008 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 13 UJ 2.6 UJ GRANDVIEW WP 3/18/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 2.6 U PROSSER WP 3/20/2008 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 13 UJ 2.6 UJ PROSSER REP 3/20/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 UJ 2.6 U BENTONC WP 3/20/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 2.6 U W RICHLAND 3/20/2008 na 26 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 13 U 2.6 U TRNSFR BLANK 3/20/2008 na 26 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 13 UJ 2.6 UJ BOTTLE BLANK 3/20/2008 na na na na na na Chlordane (technical) Toxaphene AlphaBHC Beta-BHC DeltaBHC Lindane

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 299 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) CLE ELUM WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na na KITTITAS WP 12/13/2007 na na na na na na SELAH WP 12/13/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U SELAH REP 12/13/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U NACHES WP 12/12/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U COWICHE WP 12/12/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U YAKIMA WP 12/12/2007 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 UJ 2.7 U MOXEE WP 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U BUENA WP 12/18/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U ZILLAH WP 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U GRANGER WP 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U SUNNYSIDE WP 12/18/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U SS PORT WP 12/18/2007 REJ REJ REJ REJ REJ REJ MABTON WP 12/18/2007 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 UJ 2.7 U GRANDVIEW WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ GRANDVIEW 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U PROSSER WP 12/20/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U BENTONC WP 12/20/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U W RICHLAND 12/20/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 2.6 U BOTTLE BLNK 12/18/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U TRNSFR BLANK 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

CLE ELUM WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na na ELLENSBURG WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na na KITTITAS WP 3/11/2008 na na na na na na SELAH WP 3/11/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ NACHES WP 3/13/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U COWICHE WP 3/13/2008 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.7 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U YAKIMA WP 3/13/2008 2.5 UJ 2.5 J 3.6 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 UJ YAKIMA REP 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 3.7 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ MOXEE WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ BUENA WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ ZILLAH WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ GRANGER WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ SUNNYSIDE WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ SS PORT WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ MABTON WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ GRANDVIEW WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ PROSSER WP 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ PROSSER REP 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ BENTONC WP 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ W RICHLAND 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ TRNSFR BLANK 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ BOTTLE BLANK 3/20/2008 na na na na na na Aldrin Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Endrin Endrin Aldehyde

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 300 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (pg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) CLE ELUM WP 12/13/2007 na na 279 J 2 1.5 463 ELLENSBURG WP 12/13/2007 na na 2,067 J 4 2.2 443 KITTITAS WP 12/13/2007 na na 376 J 1 U 0.7 445 SELAH WP 12/13/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 322 J 8 3.9 931 SELAH REP 12/13/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 342 J 7 3.5 930 NACHES WP 12/12/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 380 J 3 2.4 412 COWICHE WP 12/12/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 857 J 2 1.7 638 YAKIMA WP 12/12/2007 2.7 UJ 2.7 U 932 J 3 2.4 548 MOXEE WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.8 UJ 192 J 5 2.8 673 BUENA WP 12/18/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 267 J 2 1.5 740 ZILLAH WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.9 UJ 285 J 3 2.0 1300 GRANGER WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 299 J 6 5.2 757 SUNNYSIDE WP 12/18/2007 2.6 UJ 3.3 UJ 967 J 3 1.6 894 SS PORT WP 12/18/2007 REJ REJ 510 J 247 6.5 3250 MABTON WP 12/18/2007 2.7 UJ 2.7 U 284 J 8 4.8 627 GRANDVIEW WP 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ LS 26 7.5 1140 GRANDVIEW 12/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 121 J 25 6.9 1150 PROSSER WP 12/20/2007 2.6 UJ 2.9 UJ 599 J 16 5.1 869 BENTONC WP 12/20/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 260 J 14 4.1 1450 W RICHLAND 12/20/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 350 J 8 4.6 1060 BOTTLE BLNK 12/18/2007 2.6 U 2.6 U 579 J na na na TRNSFR BLANK 12/18/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 516 J na na na

CLE ELUM WP 3/11/2008 na na 571 J 2 1.5 J 340 ELLENSBURG WP 3/11/2008 na na 713 J 4 1.3 J 433 KITTITAS WP 3/11/2008 na na 377 J 2 0.8 J 442 SELAH WP 3/11/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 962 J 25 9.2 J 798 NACHES WP 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 443 J 4 2.8 444 COWICHE WP 3/13/2008 2.5 UJ 2.7 UJ 680 J 2 1.2 588 YAKIMA WP 3/13/2008 2.5 UJ 4.9 UJ 1,382 J 4 2.4 645 YAKIMA REP 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 5.1 UJ 434 J 4 2.3 644 MOXEE WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 355 J 5 2.8 J 681 BUENA WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 626 J 7 3.1 J 759 ZILLAH WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 1,186 J 5 2.2 J 1450 GRANGER WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 801 J 3 1.8 J 776 SUNNYSIDE WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 1,106 J 2 1.9 J 840 SS PORT WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 1,323 J 36 12 J 3150 MABTON WP 3/18/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2,370 J 71 32 J 639 GRANDVIEW WP 3/18/2008 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 463 J 19 5.4 J 1260 PROSSER WP 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 493 J 1 U 0.8 997 PROSSER REP 3/20/2008 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 387 J 1 0.7 996 BENTONC WP 3/20/2008 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 749 J 3 2.1 1250 W RICHLAND 3/20/2008 2.6 U 2.6 UJ 531 J na 1.3 1020 TRNSFR BLANK 3/20/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 184 J na na na BOTTLE BLANK 3/20/2008 na na 640 J na na naHexachlorobenzene Methoxychlor T-PCBs Total Suspended

Solids Turbidity Conductivity

U = not detected at or a bove reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed LS = lost in shipment

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 301 

## Appendix O. Fruit Packer and Vegetable Processor Effluent Data, 2007-08

Collection Flow Sample No. Field ID Date (mgd) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) 7308986 ANDRUS 7/26/2007 0.0048 0.35 J 3.1 J 3.0 J 7308983 APPLE KING 7/26/2007 0.0058 1.1 J 1.7 J 0.062 UJ 7308984 GILBERT 7/26/2007 0.0054 0.063 UJ 0.096 J 0.063 UJ 7314010 SNOKIST 7/30/2007 0.162 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.097 J 7308987 TWIN CITY 7/26/2007 0.261 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 7308982 ZIRKLE FRUIT 7/26/2007 0.166 0.12 J 0.21 UJ 0.063 UJ 7308988 ZIRKLE REP 7/26/2007 - - 0.13 J 0.21 J 0.063 UJ 7308989 TRNSFR BLNK 7/26/2007 - - 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ

7418900 ANDRUS 10/10/2007 0.0030 0.84 J 3.0 J 1.2 J 7388864 APPLE KING 9/20/2007 0.0058 1.7 2.7 J 0.061 U 7398820 GILBERT 9/25/2007 0.0054 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 7388865 SNOKIST 9/20/2007 1.0360 0.62 0.062 UJ 0.062 U 7398821 TWIN CITY 9/27/2007 0.3910 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 7398823 TWIN REP 9/27/2007 - - 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ 7388863 ZIRKLE FRUIT 9/18/2007 0.0827 0.23 J 0.69 J 0.063 U

7508111 ANDRUS 12/12/2007 0.0030 0.44 J 0.37 J 0.067 J 7508109 APPLE KING 12/12/2007 0.0058 0.39 J 0.44 J 0.068 J 7508112 APPLE REP 12/12/2007 - - 0.44 J 0.45 J 0.088 J 7518100 GILBERT 12/18/2007 0.0054 0.067 J 1.6 J 1.7 J 7508110 SNOKIST 12/12/2007 0.25 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 7518101 CON AGRA* 12/18/2007 0.23 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 7508108 ZIRKLE FRUIT 12/13/2007 0.11 0.062 J 0.65 J 0.24 J 7508113 TRNSFR BLNK 12/12/2007 - - 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

- - ANDRUS - - not processing 8118821 APPLE KING 3/13/2008 0.0058 0.52 J 1.2 J 0.16 J 8128833 GILBERT 3/18/2008 0.0054 1.6 J 6.8 4.6 J 8128835 SNOKIST 3/20/2008 0.21 0.12 J 0.067 0.063 U 8128836 SNOKIST REP 3/20/2008 - - 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 8128834 CON AGRA* 3/19/2008 0.34 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 8118820 ZIRKLE 3/11/2008 0.089 0.49 J 0.37 J 0.18 J 8128837 TRNSFR BLNK 3/19/2008 - - 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed *Twin City sold to Con Agra Foods Oct 07 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 302 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) ANDRUS 7/26/2007 0.87 J 2.9 J 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ APPLE KING 7/26/2007 1.9 J 1.0 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ GILBERT 7/26/2007 0.08 J 0.26 J 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ SNOKIST 7/30/2007 0.43 J 0.99 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U TWIN CITY 7/26/2007 2.5 J 1.2 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.088 J 0.064 UJ ZIRKLE FRUIT 7/26/2007 0.84 UJ 7.9 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ ZIRKLE REP 7/26/2007 1.3 UJ 17 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 7/26/2007 0.065 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ

ANDRUS 10/10/2007 0.32 UJ 19 J 0.064 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ APPLE KING 9/20/2007 1.1 UJ 1.2 UJ 0.061 U 0.28 UJ 0.23 UJ 0.061 U GILBERT 9/25/2007 0.86 J 2.5 J 0.064 UJ 1.3 J 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ SNOKIST 9/20/2007 0.062 U 0.091 UJ 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.093 UJ 0.062 U TWIN CITY 9/27/2007 0.078 0.25 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U TWIN REP 9/27/2007 0.061 U 0.42 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U ZIRKLE FRUIT 9/18/2007 0.59 UJ 74 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

ANDRUS 12/12/2007 0.082 UJ 1.6 J 0.068 J 0.063 UJ 0.21 J 0.063 UJ APPLE KING 12/12/2007 1.2 2.4 J 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.18 UJ APPLE REP 12/12/2007 1.3 2.5 J 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ GILBERT 12/18/2007 0.69 UJ 1.5 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.33 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.16 UJ SNOKIST 12/12/2007 0.062 UJ 0.25 J 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ CON AGRA* 12/18/2007 0.07 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U ZIRKLE FRUIT 12/13/2007 2.6 J 3.1 J 0.062 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 12/12/2007 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

ANDRUS - - APPLE KING 3/13/2008 0.55 J 6.3 J 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.083 UJ 0.062 UJ GILBERT 3/18/2008 0.061 U 2.0 0.23 UJ 0.061 U 0.16 UJ 0.12 UJ SNOKIST 3/20/2008 0.063 U 1.3 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U SNOKIST REP 3/20/2008 0.063 U 1.3 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U CON AGRA* 3/19/2008 0.14 J 0.45 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ ZIRKLE 3/11/2008 1.1 UJ 3.0 J 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 3/19/2008 0.063 U 0.17 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed *Twin City sold to Con Agra Foods Oct 07 Dieldrin Chlorpyrfos CisChlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 303 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) ANDRUS 7/26/2007 0.062 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.22 J 0.47 UJ 0.073 UJ APPLE KING 7/26/2007 0.062 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.073 UJ GILBERT 7/26/2007 0.063 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ SNOKIST 7/30/2007 0.061 U 3.1 U 0.11 0.061 U 0.061 U TWIN CITY 7/26/2007 0.064 UJ 3.8 UJ 0.14 J 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ ZIRKLE FRUIT 7/26/2007 0.063 UJ 5.7 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.084 UJ ZIRKLE REP 7/26/2007 0.063 UJ 7.7 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.079 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 7/26/2007 0.065 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ

ANDRUS 10/10/2007 0.064 UJ 16 UJ 0.35 0.064 UJ 0.15 UJ APPLE KING 9/20/2007 0.061 U 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.061 UJ GILBERT 9/25/2007 0.064 UJ 3.2 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ SNOKIST 9/20/2007 0.062 U 3.1 U 0.18 0.13 UJ 0.062 UJ TWIN CITY 9/27/2007 0.061 U 3.1 U 0.061 0.061 0.061 UJ TWIN REP 9/27/2007 0.061 U 3.1 U 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U ZIRKLE FRUIT 9/18/2007 0.063 U 6.3 UJ 0.063 U 0.99 UJ 0.13 UJ

ANDRUS 12/12/2007 0.063 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ APPLE KING 12/12/2007 0.063 UJ 3.1 U 0.063 UJ 0.086 UJ 0.063 UJ APPLE REP 12/12/2007 0.063 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ GILBERT 12/18/2007 0.063 UJ 16 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.074 UJ 0.24 UJ SNOKIST 12/12/2007 0.062 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ CON AGRA* 12/18/2007 0.063 U 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ ZIRKLE FRUIT 12/13/2007 0.062 UJ 6.2 UJ 0.17 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.17 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 12/12/2007 0.063 U 3.2 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ

ANDRUS - - APPLE KING 3/13/2008 0.062 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.07 UJ GILBERT 3/18/2008 0.31 UJ 30 UJ 0.086 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 UJ SNOKIST 3/20/2008 0.063 U 7.8 UJ 0.063 U 0.44 UJ 0.063 UJ SNOKIST REP 3/20/2008 0.063 U 7.8 UJ 0.063 U 0.48 UJ 0.063 UJ CON AGRA* 3/19/2008 0.063 UJ 3.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ ZIRKLE 3/11/2008 0.063 UJ 16 UJ 0.14 J 0.12 J 0.11 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 3/19/2008 0.063 U 3.1 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 UJ

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed *Twin City sold to Con Agra Foods Oct 07 Oxychlordane Toxaphene AlphaBHC Beta-BHC Delta-BHC

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 304 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) ANDRUS 7/26/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.42 J 0.63 J 1.0 J APPLE KING 7/26/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.8 J 2.2 J 3.7 J GILBERT 7/26/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.72 J 2.1 J 1.3 J SNOKIST 7/30/2007 0.061 U 0.24 UJ 0.12 J 0.082 J 3.0 J TWIN CITY 7/26/2007 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 1.3 J 0.2 J 7.2 J ZIRKLE FRUIT 7/26/2007 0.063 UJ 0.37 UJ 1.2 UJ 9.6 J 13 J ZIRKLE REP 7/26/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 1.5 J 12 J 18 J TRNSFR BLNK 7/26/2007 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ

ANDRUS 10/10/2007 0.55 J 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 93 J 34 J APPLE KING 9/20/2007 0.065 UJ 0.18 UJ 0.58 J 1.6 2.6 GILBERT 9/25/2007 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 14 J SNOKIST 9/20/2007 0.062 U 0.062 U 0.099 J 0.27 J 2.0 TWIN CITY 9/27/2007 0.077 0.061 UJ 0.65 0.067 1.8 J TWIN REP 9/27/2007 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.61 0.071 J 1.2 ZIRKLE FRUIT 9/18/2007 0.063 U 0.099 UJ 1.2 J 7.8 J 15

ANDRUS 12/12/2007 0.075 J 0.73 UJ 1.7 J 12 J 7.7 J APPLE KING 12/12/2007 0.063 UJ 0.41 UJ 2.4 11 7.4 J APPLE REP 12/12/2007 0.063 UJ 1.3 UJ 2.7 14 J 9.2 J GILBERT 12/18/2007 0.18 UJ 1.9 UJ 3.5 13 J 8.0 J SNOKIST 12/12/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.16 J 1.1 J CON AGRA* 12/18/2007 0.14 0.27 UJ 0.98 J 0.39 UJ 12 E ZIRKLE FRUIT 12/13/2007 0.17 UJ 2.6 UJ 4.4 21 J 17 J TRNSFR BLNK 12/12/2007 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ

ANDRUS - - APPLE KING 3/13/2008 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 3.4 J 7.6 J 7.7 J GILBERT 3/18/2008 0.3 UJ 0.88 UJ 5 J 14 J 53 SNOKIST 3/20/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.66 0.46 2.0 J SNOKIST REP 3/20/2008 0.15 0.063 U 0.52 0.33 1.8 J CON AGRA* 3/19/2008 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.083 UJ 0.17 J 6.6 J ZIRKLE 3/11/2008 0.23 J 0.89 UJ 1.3 J 14 J 11 J TRNSFR BLNK 3/19/2008 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.078 J

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed *Twin City sold to Con Agra Foods Oct 07 Lindane Aldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 305 Collection F i e ld ID Date ( ng / L ) ( ng / L ) ( ng / L ) ( ng / L ) ( ng / L ) ( ng / L ) ANDRUS 7/26/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 1.1 UJ 0.18 UJ APPLE KING 7/26/2007 0.4 UJ 1.2 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ GILBERT 7/26/2007 0.1 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ SNOKIST 7/30/2007 0.25 UJ 0.061 U 0.21 UJ 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.061 U TWIN CITY 7/26/2007 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.51 UJ 0.064 UJ ZIRKLE FRUIT 7/26/2007 0.79 UJ 0.38 UJ 1.0 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.084 UJ ZIRKLE REP 7/26/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.87 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.93 UJ 0.079 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 7/26/2007 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ 0.065 UJ

ANDRUS 10/10/2007 1.7 J 0.32 UJ 2.9 J 11 0.064 UJ 0.17 UJ APPLE KING 9/20/2007 0.11 UJ 0.061 UJ 0.061 U 0.47 J 0.061 U 0.16 UJ GILBERT 9/25/2007 0.064 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.36 J 0.47 UJ 0.064 UJ 0.88 J SNOKIST 9/20/2007 0.062 U 0.44 UJ 0.062 U 0.8 J 0.062 U 0.062 U TWIN CITY 9/27/2007 0.061 U 0.061 UJ 0.48 J 0.061 UJ 0.12 J 0.061 U TWIN REP 9/27/2007 0.061 U 0.8 J 0.061 U 0.061 U 0.13 0.061 U ZIRKLE FRUIT 9/18/2007 0.8 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.12 UJ 0.29 UJ 0.063 U

ANDRUS 12/12/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.18 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.063 UJ APPLE KING 12/12/2007 0.46 UJ 0.82 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.33 UJ 0.063 UJ APPLE REP 12/12/2007 0.53 UJ 1.5 UJ 0.063 U 0.066 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 UJ GILBERT 12/18/2007 0.81 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.29 UJ 3.2 0.063 UJ SNOKIST 12/12/2007 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.062 UJ CON AGRA* 12/18/2007 0.063 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.13 UJ 0.063 U ZIRKLE FRUIT 12/13/2007 0.43 UJ 1.3 UJ 0.062 U 0.32 UJ 0.062 U 0.079 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 12/12/2007 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

ANDRUS - - APPLE KING 3/13/2008 0.28 UJ REJ 0.21 UJ 0.062 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.062 UJ GILBERT 3/18/2008 0.061 U REJ 1.2 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.47 0.072 UJ SNOKIST 3/20/2008 0.063 U REJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.082 J SNOKIST REP 3/20/2008 0.063 U REJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.11 J CON AGRA* 3/19/2008 0.063 UJ REJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.12 J 0.063 UJ ZIRKLE 3/11/2008 0.13 UJ REJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ 0.063 UJ TRNSFR BLNK 3/19/2008 0.063 U REJ 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U 0.063 U

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed *Twin City sold to Con Agra Foods Oct 07 Endrin Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenzene

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 306 Collection Field ID Date (ng/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) ANDRUS 7/26/2007 0.062 UJ 86 110 679 APPLE KING 7/26/2007 2.0 UJ 4 18 456 GILBERT 7/26/2007 0.095 UJ 2 0.7 185 SNOKIST 7/30/2007 1.4 UJ 24 6.3 996 TWIN CITY 7/26/2007 2.3 UJ 15 5.3 3,010 ZIRKLE FRUIT 7/26/2007 1.0 UJ 2 5.4 569 ZIRKLE REP 7/26/2007 0.063 UJ 2 U 5.3 568 TRNSFR BLNK 7/26/2007 0.065 UJ na na na

ANDRUS 10/10/2007 35 J 242 110 603 APPLE KING 9/20/2007 0.061 UJ 7 9.6 432 GILBERT 9/25/2007 0.064 UJ 51 28 250 SNOKIST 9/20/2007 0.062 UJ 4 1.9 529 TWIN CITY 9/27/2007 0.061 U 2 1.9 2,110 TWIN REP 9/27/2007 0.061 U 2 2.1 2,100 ZIRKLE FRUIT 9/18/2007 0.063 UJ 2 U 3.5 718

ANDRUS 12/12/2007 2.7 UJ 20 28 494 APPLE KING 12/12/2007 0.84 UJ 3 17 479 APPLE REP 12/12/2007 0.87 UJ 4 12 480 GILBERT 12/18/2007 2.3 UJ 68 34 221 SNOKIST 12/12/2007 0.062 UJ 11 4.1 592 CON AGRA* 12/18/2007 0.063 UJ 5 3.5 2,310 ZIRKLE FRUIT 12/13/2007 2.3 UJ 16 18 748 TRNSFR BLNK 12/12/2007 0.063 UJ na na na

ANDRUS - - APPLE KING 3/13/2008 0.062 UJ 6 16 518 GILBERT 3/18/2008 1.1 UJ 24 24 J 225 SNOKIST 3/20/2008 0.063 U 3 1.3 545 SNOKIST REP 3/20/2008 0.063 U 3 1.1 543 CON AGRA* 3/19/2008 0.063 UJ 8 4.3 2,990 ZIRKLE 3/11/2008 0.063 UJ 19 23 766 TRNSFR BLNK 3/19/2008 0.063 UJ na na na

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated REJ = rejected na = not analyzed *Twin City sold to Con Agra Foods Oct 07 Methoxychlor Total Suspended Solids Turbidity Conductivity

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 307 

## Appendix P. Stormwater Data, 2007-08

U = not detected at or above reported value

J = estimate d na = not analyze d Sample No. City Field ID Collection Date 7404850 Ellensburg CANYON RD 10/4/2007 na na na 7404851 Ellensburg MT VIEW 10/4/2007 na na na 7404852 Ellensburg CORA 10/4/2007 na na na

7424858 Yakima HORSE 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 9.1 J 7.5 J 7424863 Yakima HORSE REP 10/18/2007 0.29 J 5.8 J 4.7 J

7474858 Yakima HORSE 11/17/2007 2.5 J 14 J 9.6 J 7474861 Yakima HORSE REP 11/17/2007 3 J 19 J 13 J 7474859 Yakima 12TH 11/17/2007 3.3 J 18 J 22 J 7474860 Yakima PERRY T 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 18 J 13 J 7474862 Yakima TRAILER 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7474863 Yakima 34TH 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 3 J 2.5 UJ 7474864 Yakima TRANSF BLNK 11/17/2007 na na na

7474850 Ellensburg CANYON RD 11/17/2007 na na na 7474851 Ellensburg MT VIEW 11/17/2007 na na na 7474852 Ellensburg CORA 11/17/2007 na na na 7474853 Ellensburg MUSIC 11/17/2007 na na na

na na na 7494859 Yakima 12TH 12/2/2007 2.7 UJ 13 J 13 J 7494861 Yakima 12TH REP 12/2/2007 2.6 UJ 13 J 13 J 7494858 Yakima HORSE 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 9.8 J 9.9 J 7494860 Yakima PERRY T 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 11 J 9.5 J 7494864 Yakima TRANSF BLNK 12/2/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

7494850 Ellensburg CANYON RD 12/3/2007 na na na 7494851 Ellensburg MT VIEW 12/3/2007 na na na 7494852 Ellensburg CORA 12/3/2007 na na na 7494853 Ellensburg MUSIC 12/3/2007 na na na 7494854 Ellensburg CORA REP 12/3/2007 na na na 7494865 Ellensburg TRANSF BLNK 12/3/2007 na na na 4,4'-DDD

(ng/L) 4,4'-DDE (ng/L) 4,4'-DDT (ng/L)

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 308 U = not detected at or above reported value

J = estimate d na = not analyze d Collection Sample No. City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

7404850 Ellensburg CANYON RD 10/4/2007 na na na na na 7404851 Ellensburg MT VIEW 10/4/2007 na na na na na 7404852 Ellensburg CORA 10/4/2007 na na na na na

7424858 Yakima/Union HORSE 10/18/2007 8.3 17 J 4.9 15 26 7424863 Yakima/Union HORSE REP 10/18/2007 4.6 9.6 J 5.8 8.7 16

7474858 Yakima/Union HORSE 11/17/2007 7.4 UJ 19 J 2.8 J 19 J 21 J 7474861 Yakima/Union HORSE REP 11/17/2007 9.3 UJ 4.8 J 12 24 26 7474859 Yakima/Union 12TH 11/17/2007 4.4 J 2.4 UJ 2.4 U 12 J 14 J 7474860 Yakima/Union PERRY T 11/17/2007 5.1 J 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 10 J 12 J 7474862 Yakima/Union TRAILER 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 7474863 Yakima/Union 34TH 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 4.5 J 7.0 J 7474864 Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 11/17/2007 na na na na na

7474850 Ellensburg CANYON RD 11/17/2007 na na na na na 7474851 Ellensburg MT VIEW 11/17/2007 na na na na na 7474852 Ellensburg CORA 11/17/2007 na na na na na 7474853 Ellensburg MUSIC 11/17/2007 na na na na na

7494859 Yakima/Union 12TH 12/2/2007 2.7 UJ 3.8 J 5.4 J 15 J 13 J 7494861 Yakima/Union 12TH REP 12/2/2007 2.9 J 4.3 J 5.2 J 13 J 11 J 7494858 Yakima/Union HORSE 12/2/2007 2.5 U 3.3 4.9 13 J 9.9 J 7494860 Yakima/Union PERRY T 12/2/2007 3.0 J 4.5 J 3.0 13 J 10 J 7494864 Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 12/2/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ

7494850 Ellensburg CANYON RD 12/3/2007 na na na na na 7494851 Ellensburg MT VIEW 12/3/2007 na na na na na 7494852 Ellensburg CORA 12/3/2007 na na na na na 7494853 Ellensburg MUSIC 12/3/2007 na na na na na 7494854 Ellensburg CORA REP 12/3/2007 na na na na na 7494865 Ellensburg TRNSF BLNK 12/3/2007 na na na na na Endosulfan

Sulfate Endosulfan I Endosulfan IIChlorpyrifos Dieldrin

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 309 TaTi Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Ellensburg CANYON RD 10/4/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 10/4/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 10/4/2007 na na na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ

Yakima/Union HORSE 11/17/2007 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union 12TH 11/17/2007 4.0 J 2.4 UJ 4.1 J 4.5 J Yakima/Union PERRY T 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRAILER 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union 34TH 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 11/17/2007 na na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MUSIC 11/17/2007 na na na na

Yakima/Union 12TH 12/2/2007 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ Yakima/Union 12TH REP 12/2/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union PERRY T 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 12/2/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

Ellensburg CANYON RD 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MUSIC 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA REP 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg TRNSF BLNK 12/3/2007 na na na na U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Cis-Chlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 310 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Ellensburg CANYON RD 10/4/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 10/4/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 10/4/2007 na na na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ

Yakima/Union HORSE 11/17/2007 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union 12TH 11/17/2007 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ 2.4 UJ Yakima/Union PERRY T 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRAILER 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union 34TH 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 11/17/2007 na na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MUSIC 11/17/2007 na na na na

Yakima/Union 12TH 12/2/2007 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ Yakima/Union 12TH REP 12/2/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union PERRY T 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 12/2/2007 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

Ellensburg CANYON RD 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MUSIC 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA REP 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg TRNSF BLNK 12/3/2007 na na na na U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Oxychlordane AlphaBHC Beta-BHC Delta-BHC

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 311 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (pg/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Ellensburg CANYON RD 10/4/ 2007 na na 2,144 J na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 10/4/2007 na na 530 J na na Ellensburg CORA 10/4/2007 na na 352 J na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 25 UJ 15,999 J 2.5 U 4.4 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 25 UJ 1,668 J 2.5 U 2.5 U

Yakima/Union HORSE 11/17/2007 2.4 UJ 24 UJ 24,467 J 4.0 J 2.9 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 25 UJ 32,372 J 3.3 J 4.9 UJ Yakima/Union 12TH 11/17/2007 2.4 UJ 24 UJ na 2.6 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union PERRY T 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 25 UJ 15,490 J 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRAILER 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 25 UJ 566 J 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union 34TH 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 25 UJ 734 J 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 11/17/2007 na na 133 J na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 11/17/ 2007 na na 7,046 J na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 11/17/2007 na na 33,485 J na na Ellensburg CORA 11/17/2007 na na broken na na Ellensburg MUSIC 11/17/2007 na na 440 J na na

Yakima/Union 12TH 12/2/2007 2.7 UJ 27 UJ 11,135 J 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ Yakima/Union 12TH REP 12/2/2007 2.6 UJ 26 UJ 10,989 J 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 25 UJ 2,159 J 2.5 U 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union PERRY T 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 25 UJ 1,994 J 2.5 U 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 12/2/2007 2.5 U 25 U 363 J 2.5 U 2.5 UJ

Ellensburg CANYON RD 12/3/ 2007 na na 6,136 J na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 12/3/2007 na na 1,009 J na na Ellensburg CORA 12/3/2007 na na 1,104 J na na Ellensburg MUSIC 12/3/2007 na na 2,000 J na na Ellensburg CORA REP 12/3/2007 na na 19,815 J na na Ellensburg TRNSF BLNK 12/3/2007 na na 463 J na na U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Lindane Toxaphene Total PCBs Aldrin Endrin

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 312 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Ellensburg CANYON RD 10/4/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 10/4/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 10/4/2007 na na na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 10/18/2007 11 UJ 3.4 UJ 2.5 UJ 3.4 J Yakima/Union HORSE REP 10/18/2007 10 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U

Yakima/Union HORSE 11/17/2007 7.8 UJ 2.0 U 2.4 UJ 2.8 J Yakima/Union HORSE REP 11/17/2007 5.3 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.5 UJ 3.5 J Yakima/Union 12TH 11/17/2007 2.7 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.4 UJ 2.5 J Yakima/Union PERRY T 11/17/2007 4.0 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.7 J Yakima/Union TRAILER 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union 34TH 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 11/17/2007 na na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 11/17/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MUSIC 11/17/2007 na na na na

Yakima/Union 12TH 12/2/2007 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ 2.7 UJ Yakima/Union 12TH REP 12/2/2007 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U Yakima/Union PERRY T 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

Ellensburg CANYON RD 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MT VIEW 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg MUSIC 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg CORA REP 12/3/2007 na na na na Ellensburg TRNSF BLNK 12/3/2007 na na na na U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 313 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) Ellensburg CANYON RD 10/4/2007 na na 127 210 J 192 Ellensburg MT VIEW 10/4/2007 na na 20 39 J 118 Ellensburg CORA 10/4/2007 na na 28 29 J 245

Yakima/Union HORSE 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 11 43 75 91 Yakima/Union HORSE REP 10/18/2007 2.5 UJ 6.3 38 75 91

Yakima/Union HORSE 11/17/2007 2.4 UJ 16 641 370 J 148 Yakima/Union HORSE REP 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 14 512 330 J 219 Yakima/Union 12TH 11/17/2007 2.4 UJ 3.3 654 400 J 98 Yakima/Union PERRY T 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 5.1U 323 280 J 165 Yakima/Union TRAILER 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 1 U 1.4 J 286 Yakima/Union 34TH 11/17/2007 2.5 UJ 2.5 18 33 J 146 Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 11/17/2007 na na na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 11/17/2007 na na 206 200 J 51 Ellensburg MT VIEW 11/17/2007 na na 116 140 J 42 Ellensburg CORA 11/17/2007 na na 74 98 J 175 Ellensburg MUSIC 11/17/2007 na na 15 45 J 261

Yakima/Union 12TH 12/2/2007 2.7 UJ 23 326 400 J 1,990 Yakima/Union 12TH REP 12/2/2007 2.6 UJ 22 244 450 J 2,020 Yakima/Union HORSE 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 19 111 180 J 661 Yakima/Union PERRY T 12/2/2007 2.5 UJ 3.3U 98 230 J 4,710 Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 12/2/2007 2.5 U 2.5 na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 12/3/2007 na na 134 280 344 Ellensburg MT VIEW 12/3/2007 na na 52 140 354 Ellensburg CORA 12/3/2007 na na 66 120 342 Ellensburg MUSIC 12/3/2007 na na 47 110 282 Ellensburg CORA REP 12/3/2007 na na 63 120 347 Ellensburg TRNSF BLNK 12/3/2007 na na na na na U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Hexachlorobenzene Methoxychlor Total Suspended Solids Turbidity Conductivity

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 314 Collection Sample No. City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

8114859 Yakima/Union 12TH 3/13/2008 33 J 54 J 3.5 J 8114858 Yakima/Union HORSE 3/13/2008 30 J 52 J 4.1 J 8114861 Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/13/2008 30 J 52 J 4.1 J 8114864 Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/13/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 8114862 Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/13/2008 na na na

8134858 Yakima/Union HORSE 3/28/2008 na na na 8134859 Yakima/Union 12TH 3/28/2008 na na na 8134861 Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/28/2008 na na na 8134864 Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na 8134865 Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na

8234850 Ellensburg CANYON RD 6/3/2008 na na na 8234852 Ellensburg CORA 6/3/2008 na na na 8234860 Yakima/Union PERRY T 6/3/2008 9.1 14 2.5 U 8234864 Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 6/3/2008 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 315 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Yakima/Union 12TH 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 222 J 40 J 47 J 14 J Yakima/Union HORSE 3/13/2008 3.1 UJ 159 J 47 J 42 J 5.6 J Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/13/2008 3.1 UJ 156 J 40 J 41 J 6.8 J Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/13/2008 na na na na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 3/28/2008 na na na na na Yakima/Union 12TH 3/28/2008 na na na na na Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/28/2008 na na na na na Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na na Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 6/3/2008 na na na na na Ellensburg CORA 6/3/2008 na na na na na Yakima/Union PERRY T 6/3/2008 2.5 UJ 6.0 J 84 J 23 J 17 J Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 6/3/2008 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Dieldrin Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan Sulfate

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 316 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Yakima/Union 12TH 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.7 J 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.9 J 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 3.1 J 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/13/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/13/2008 na na na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union 12TH 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 6/3/2008 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 6/3/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union PERRY T 6/3/2008 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 6/3/2008 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Cis-Chlordane CisNonachlor TransChlordane TransNonachlor

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 317 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Yakima/Union 12TH 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/13/2008 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/13/2008 na na na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union 12TH 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 6/3/2008 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 6/3/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union PERRY T 6/3/2008 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 6/3/2008 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Oxychlordane AlphaBHC Beta-BHC Delta-BHC

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 318 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (pg/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Yakima/Union 12TH 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 26 UJ 11,207 J 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 32 J 19,584 J 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 29 J 16,245 J 6.2 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/13/2008 2.6 U 26 U 57 J 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/13/2008 na na 506 J na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 3/28/2008 na na 8,097 J na na Yakima/Union 12TH 3/28/2008 na na 7,512 J na na Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/28/2008 na na 8,502 J na na Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/28/2008 na na 292 J na na Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/28/2008 na na 283 J na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 6/ 3/2008 na na na na na Ellensburg CORA 6/3/2008 na na na na na Yakima/Union PERRY T 6/3/2008 2.5 U 25 UJ na 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 6/3/2008 2.5 U 25 UJ na 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Lindane Toxaphene Total PCBs Aldrin Endrin

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 319 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) Yakima/Union 12TH 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 3.2 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union HORSE 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 12 J Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 8.7 J Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 UJ 2.6 U 2.6 UJ Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/13/2008 na na na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union 12TH 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na

Ellensburg CANYON RD 6/3/2008 na na na na Ellensburg CORA 6/3/2008 na na na na Yakima/Union PERRY T 6/3/2008 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 UJ Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 6/3/2008 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 UJ

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 320 Collection City Field ID Date (ng/L) (ng/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (umhos/cm) Yakima/Union 12TH 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 290 330 236 Yakima/Union HORSE 3/13/2008 17 J 19 450 450 478 Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/13/2008 18 J 7.8 410 500 473 Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/13/2008 2.6 UJ 2.6 na na na Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/13/2008 na na

Yakima/Union HORSE 3/28/2008 na na 196 225 J 370 Yakima/Union 12TH 3/28/2008 na na 46 60 J 178 Yakima/Union HORSE REP 3/28/2008 na na na na na Yakima/Union TRNSF BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na na Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 3/28/2008 na na na na na

na Ellensburg CANYON RD 6/3/2008 na na 155 235 232 Ellensburg CORA 6/3/2008 na na 63 70 182 Yakima/Union PERRY T 6/3/2008 2.5 U 2.5 85 92 93 Yakima/Union BOTTLE BLNK 6/3/2008 2.5 U 2.5 na na na

U = not detected at or above reported value J = estimated na = not analyzed Hexachlorobenzene Methox

ychlor Total Suspended Solids Turbidity Conductivity

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 321 

## Appendix Q. Values of Potential Use for Calculating Stormwater Loads to the Yakima River from Sunnyside and Richland (using the Simple Method)

Sunnyside

City Limits (acres) 4,232

Annual Rainfall (in.) 7.0

Fraction of Runoff 0.90

Impervious Fraction 0.22

Runoff Coefficient 0.25

Annual Runoff (in.) 1.79

Richland

Area discharging to Yakima River (acres) 5,990

Annual Rainfall (in.) 7.0

Fraction of Runoff 0.90

Impervious Fraction 0.22

Runoff Coefficient 0.25

Annual Runoff (in.) 1.79

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 322 This page is purposely left blank

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 323 

## Appendix R. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

Glossary

303(d) list: Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires Washington State periodically to prepare a list of all surface waters in the state fo r which beneficial uses of the water – such as for drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use – are impaired by pollutants. These are water quality limited estuar ies, lakes, and streams that fall short of state surface water quality standards, a nd are not expected to improve within the next two years. Best Management Practices (BMPs): Physical, structural, and/or operational practices that, when used singularly or in combination, pr event or reduce pollutant discharges.

Bioaccumulative Pollutants: Pollutants that build up in the food chain.

Clean Water Act: Federal Act passed in 1972 that contains provisions to restore and maintain the quality of the nation’s waters. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act establishes the TMDL program. Conductivity: A measure of water’s ability to conduct an electrical current. Conductivity is related to the concentration and charge of dissolved ions in water. Designated Uses : Those uses specified in Chapter 173-201A WAC (Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington ) for each waterbody or segment, regardless of whether or not the uses are currently attained.

Exceeds Criteria: Fails to meet criteria. Existing Uses: Those uses actually attained in fresh and marine waters on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are designated uses. Introduced species that are not native to Washington, and put-and-take fisheries compri sed of non-self-replica ting introduced native species, do not need to receive fu ll support as an existing use. Grab Sample: A discrete sample from a single point in the water column or sediment surface. Irrigation Season: In this study, the irrigation season is April through October. Legacy Pesticide: Banned pesticides no longer used but that persist in the environment.

Load Allocation: The portion of a receiving wa ters’ loading capacity attributed to one or more of its existing or future s ources of nonpoint pollution or to natural background sources. Loading Capacity: The greatest amount of a substance that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. Margin of Safety (MOS): Required component of TMDLs that accounts for uncertainty about the relationship between pollutant loads and quality of the receiving waterbody.

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 324 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4): A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains): (i) owne d or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body having jurisdic tion over disposal of wastes, stormwater, or other wa stes and (ii) designed or us ed for collecting or conveying stormwater; (iii) which is not a combined sewer; and (iv) which is not pa rt of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 122.2. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): National program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, m onitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements unde r the Clean Water Act. The NPDES program regulates discharges from wastew ater treatment plants, large fact ories, and other facilities that use, process, and discharge water back into lakes, streams, rivers, bays, and oceans. Nonpoint Source: Pollution that enters any waters of the state from any dispersed land-based or water-based activities, including but not limite d to atmospheric deposition, surface water runoff from agricultural lands, urban areas, or forest lands, subsurface or underground sources, or discharges from boats or marine vessels not otherwise regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program. Generally, any unconfined and diffuse source of contamination. Legally, any source of water polluti on that does not meet the legal definition of “point source” in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act.

Parameter: Water quality constituent being measur ed. A physical, chemical, or biological property whose values determine environm ental characteristics or behavior.

Phase I Stormwater Permit: The first phase of stormwat er regulation required under the federal Clean Water Act. The permit is issued to medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and constructi on sites of five or more acres.

Phase II Stormwater Permit: The second phase of stormwat er regulation required under the federal Clean Water Act. The permit is issued to smaller municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and construc tion sites over one acre.

Point Source: Sources of pollution that discharge at a specific location from pipes, outfalls, and conveyance channels to a surface wa ter. Examples of point sour ce discharges include municipal wastewater treatment plants, municipal stormwater systems, industrial wast e treatment facilities, and construction sites that clea r more than 5 acres of land.

Pollution: Such contamination, or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties, of any waters of the st ate. This includes change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, or odor of the waters. It also includes discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or other substance into any waters of the state. This definition assumes that these changes will, or are likely to, create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to (1) public health, safety, or welfare, or (2) domestic, commercial, indus trial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or (3) livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic life.

Salmonid : Any fish that belong to the family Salmonidae . Basically, any species of salmon, trout, or char. www.fws.gov/le/I mpExp/FactSheetSalmonids.htm

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 325 Stormwater: The portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate but instead runs off roads, pave ment, and roofs during rainfall or snowmelt. Stormwater can also come from hard or satu rated grass surfaces such as lawns, pastures, playfields, and from gravel roads and parking lots. Synoptic survey: Data collected simultaneously or over a short period of time.

Surface Waters of the State : Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, salt waters, wetlands and all other surface waters and watercourses wi thin the jurisdiction of Washington State. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): A distribution of a substance in a waterbody designed to protect it from exceeding water quality standards. A TMDL is equal to the sum of all of the following: (1) individual wasteloa d allocations for point sources, (2) the load allocations for nonpoint sources, (3) the cont ribution of natural sources, and (4) a Margin of Safety to allow for uncertainty in the wasteload determination. A reserve for future growth is also generally provided. Total Suspended Solids (TSS): The suspended particulate matter in a water sample as retained by a filter. Turbidity: A measure of water clarity. High levels of turbidity can have a negative impact on aquatic life.

Wasteload Allocation: The portion of a receiving water’s load ing capacity allocated to existing or future point sources of pollution. Wasteload allocations constitute one type of water qualitybased effluent limitation.

Watershed: A drainage area or basin in which all land and water areas drain or flow toward a central collector such as a stream, river, or lake at a lower elevation.



## Acronyms and Abbreviations

CRO Central Regional Office (Department of Ecology) DDD Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethane DDE Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DOC Dissolved organic carbon EAP Environmental Assessment Program (Department of Ecology) Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act GC/ECD Gas chromatography/ electron capture detection HRGC/MS High resolution gas ch romatography/mass spectrometry LVI Volume injection N Number

### Yakima Pesticides/PCBs TMDL: Vol 1, WQ Study Findings Page 326 NTU Nephelometric turbidity units PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl r.m. River mile RSBOJC Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control SOP Standard operating procedure SPE Solid phase extraction SPMD Semipermeable membrane device SWMP Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in Salmonid Bearing Streams TMDL (See Glossary above) TNVSS Total non-volatile suspended solids TOC Total organic carbon Trib Tributary TSS (See Glossary above) USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USGS U.S. Geological Survey WDOH Washington State De partment of Health WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDA Washington State Depa rtment of Agriculture WWTP Wastewater treatment plant