[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Fish Kills in Coastal Waters 1980-1989 -,@f Ar U.S. Department of Commerce SH National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 171 T573 1991 Fish Kills in Coastal Waters 1980-1989 Jamison Anne Lowe, Daniel R.G. Farrow, Anthony S. Pait, Sheila J. Arenstam, and Eileen F. Lavan September 1991 property of CSC Library Strategic Environmental Assessments Division Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean, Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 64 1 'p @ Ilk rNOT C* Adkiniowledgements This report is the result of the contri- butions of many individuals in NOAA's Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Daniel J. Basta provided guidance on the content and design of the report, as well as the overall layout. Davida G. Remer provided editorial guidance for graphics and tables. Kim Keeter- Scott served as the editor, conducted quality-control reviews of all final data tables, and coordinated printing. The project team prepared the original drafts and conducted quality- control reviews of all final narrative and data in the report. In addition to the report team, Timothy Manuelides provided support in preparing graphics. Reviews of draft materials were provided by Charles N. Ehler, Louis W. Butler, Thomas J. Culliton, and Paul Paris, all of NOAA. Special appreciation is extended to the State environmental manage- ment, fish and wildlife, and water quality enforcement officials who provided their time and data through- out the project. In addition, Nina Harllee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was particularly helpful in locating state fish-kill program offices and providing fish-kill data from EPA's data base and hard copy files. Comments on this report or ques- tions about current and future estuarine activities should be ad- dressed to Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 6001 Executive Blvd. Rockville, Maryland 20852 Introduction Although fish-kill reporting approach to understanding these coupled with low-flow conditions; programs around the Nation effects is to compile information or in many cases, to a more vary greatly, they indicate that on fish kills. complex combination of human- fish kills have not been a related and natural factors such pervasive problem in the Although assessments based as oxygen depletion resulting Nation's estuarine and coastal solely on fish kills provide only from algal blooms stimulated by areas. However, recurring kills partial and conservative infer- nutrients carried in nonpoint or "hotspots" do occur in some ences of pollutant effects, they source runoff. areas. can provide useful information on the spatial and temporal dimen- The information compiled should This report summarizes results of sions of potential problems. For be useful to environmental efforts across the Nation to example, the information com- managers and planners at the identify, report, and assess the piled in this report contains data Federal, State, and local level to causes of fish kills in coastal on the date, location, and pinpoint "problem" areas. Com- rivers, streams, and estuarine probable cause of kills. Ana- piling this information into a waters between 1980 and 1989. lyzed together, these factors can consistent national framework The location, extent, severity, help identify areas where recur- provides decisionmakers con- timing, and cause of over 3,600 ring problems exist. cerned with regional or national fish-kill events are documented. issues with the ability to target Data are shown for the 22 states The data also provide a temporal areas of concern or devise a bordering the Atlantic, Gulf of record that can be used to help more uniform approach to data Mexico, and Pacific coasts evaluate evidence of trends in collection. (Figure 1). water quality. Fish-kill events can be related to specific human These data are being used in It would be ideal if information activities such as an accidental two on-going projects in the was available on the effects of pesticide spill or the discharge of National Oceanic and Atmo- pollutants on all aquatic organ- high levels of chlorine disinfec- spheric Administration's (NOAA) isms. However, this is not the tant from a wastewater treatment Strategic Environmental Assess- case and very little is known plant. Events are also linked to ments (SEA) Division. First, fish- about how the variety of pollut- natural phenomena such as kill information will be used to ants released to the environment oxygen depletion resulting from evaluate the effects of agricul- affects these organisms. One sustained periods of hot weather, tural pesticide use in coastal '@w- 0@ @toasial Si 6-1'i@8 . .. .... ,Figur&.' R @-Kilft@dfii@ R6@6rted,in 2, j98 lip" North Atlantic Pacific Middle Atlantic South Atlantic Number of Events 181 to 1292 112 to 181 Gulf of exico ic 32 to 112 1 to 32 Introduction areas (Pait et al., 1991). Sec- kill reporting program(s). to collect data on fish kills for ond, they will be used to assess However, only 11 states indi- inclusion in the 305(b) water- nutrient enrichment problems in cated that fish-kill events are quality assessment reports. the Nation's estuaries through used as an environmental NOAA's National Estuarine indicator in their water-quality Eutrophication Survey (Hinga et assessments or in Federal al., 1991). assessments such as.the 99@gn biennial reports required by State participation in the State Programs section 305(b) of the Clean program was voluntary and has Water Act (Environmental Law declined significantly since State agencies investigate and Institute, 1988) (Appendix B). 1979. In 1988, only 12 of 22 document fish-kill events coastal states reported fish kills because they typically signal a EPA Fish-Kill Data Base to EPA. Agencies in several severe environmental stress on states appeared to have been a waterbody. Each agency's The U.S. Environmental Protec- unaware of EPA's program. In immediate goal is to identify and tion Agency (EPA) fish-kill addition, the data collected only correct the cause of the prob- reporting program is a continua- included poll utio n-related fish lem. Events are documented so tion of the U.S. Public Health kills and not those attributed to that a record of the magnitude Service program that tracked natural phenomena. Conse- and probable cause exists in events from 1960 to 1971. It is quently, a significant cause of case an attempt is made to the only program that (until fish kills (natural phenomena) recover costs for the resource recently) has collected informa- is not accounted for in the EPA injury. tion nationwide on fish-kill data base. The EPA data base events. Although EPA has not was only of limited use for this Eighteen of 22 coastal states published a report since 1976, it report (about a third of the indicated that responding to an continued to collect information information presented is from environmental emergency was on fish kills until recently. EPA the EPA data base). the primary purpose of their fish- encourages states to continue Table 1. Summary of Reported Fish-Kill Events in Coastal States, 1980-1989 Item 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Number of states reporting 21 21 16 15 17 18 20 20 19 18 Number of events 279 358 283 283 263 340 519 424 464 442 Events that reported number of fish killed 243 308 226 252 222 303 453 331 375 368 Total estimated number of fish killed (millions) 138 97 12 22 41 33 24 4 32 6 Average size of kill (thousands) 567 316 51 86 184 108 52 12 85 16 Largest kill reported (millions) 50 30 2 4 22 8 2 1 18 3 Reports where extent of area affected was stated 106 114 70 67 54 61 77 68 52 34 Flowing waterbodies: Number of events so 85 61 57 48 47 63 52 43 25 Miles of stream affected 232 309 77 96 173 94 170 73 66 30 Lakes and reservoirs: Number of events 26 29 9 10 6 14 14 16 9 9 Acres affected 16 113 1 1 <1 2 3 6 1 1 2 Introduction ,,Data Collection and Figure 2. Summary of Fish-Kill Events from 1980-1989 for 22 Verification Coastal States 600- 150 Data were obtained by either a state compiling and sending 500- NOAA hard copy or digital files, or by the project team making a 4 400- 100 2i C site visit. Site visits were made > w Events to Maryland, Virginia, Oregon, 'S 300- and Washington. 3 E 0 200 -50 Information on fish-kill events Fish Killed and on the operation of report- 100 ing program(s) was collected from each state and entered into a NOAA data base. Data 1986 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 collected on each reported.fish- (21) (21) (16) (15) (17) (18) (20) (20) (19) (17) kill event included: 1) name Year and type of waterbody; 2) (Number ot States Reporting) location (county, nearest town, This NOAA-developed data @@alor Data Element@ base was also compared to coordinates where available); f6rE and latitude and longitude 3) date of kill; 4) cause of kill; ach Event EPA's data base. Event records 5) species and number of fish or parts of records were added, Uh u4bause identifies the type of where appropriate. Sixty-two killed; 6) extent of area af- "land use from which a pollutant fected; and 7) duration of _',@associated 1@ith an event originated percent of the events in the critical effects. Special empha- adi@i6ultural',' industrial, urtian, NOAA data base came from Iimpdunclm6nirsilviculture, wildland, State agencies, 7 percent from sis was placed on obtaining information describing the mining, or mikar'y''6lerations). Events local agencies, and 31 percent cause of each event. -@asso6i4ted with eutrophicatJ6 ,h,'Iow- from EPA. di@`s"81ved @ ri@@etc., wore termed When the data provided for an Information was also collected So'uice identifies the physical entity or event were insufficient to on selected characteristics of activity from which a pollutant associ- characterize the cause, the ated with an event originated (e.g., each State's reporting label "unspecified" was farhi', industrial plant, wastewater program(s) to better understand assigned. For a "land-use" treatment plant, or canal). the Nation's infrastructure for cause, 60 percent of all records I,nIcident Idesc Iribes the action that fish-kill reportin .g. Information on were assigned "unspecified"; introduced a pollutant to a waterbody program organization, investiga- for incident, 62 percent; and for (e.g.,-,run6ff, routine or accidental tion procedures, on-site and off- direct cause, 21 percent. In r0eas6s, spiil,'spraying, natural, site testing of fish tissue and 61pwd6wh,,andlredging or dr iIling cases where the cause re- water samples, documentation, activities). ported did not reflect a naturally distribution of fish-kill-related or human-induced change in Dll@@ct,64�e lists the actual cause for information, and use of the data a'fish kill (e.g.', i@'6'W7d@l@''@S4'0"lVed"@ox'@y'g'en, and publications is presented in water quality, the event was I @W @, pesticide, stranding, pk, tpirripairature, Appendix B. omitted. For example, kills "or nutrientsz' caused by commercial fishing operations, recreational fisher- Poll iant names the specific Urhitations of the Data men discards, underwater agent that caused a fish kill. explosions, vandalism, spawn- Interpretation of the data pre- ing stress, stocking stress, sented and any conclusions catch and release stress, and To verify the information drawn must be tempered with a entrapment in live bait boxes collected, all data were re- clear understanding of the were omitted. viewed by the participating limitations of the data. 1511 Milieu State agencies. 3 Introduction Figure 3. Sites of Major Fish-Kill Events from 1980-1989 for 22 Coastal States, Top Ten Fish Kills County/State Waterbody Fish Killed (millions) Galveston, TX Jolly Rogers Canal 50 Orange FL Lake Apopka 30 Anne A;undel, MID Chesapeake Bay 25 Galveston, TX Gulf of Mexico 21 Galveston, TX Clear Creek 20' Kent, DE Little River 18 Harris, TX San Jacinto Bay-East 15 Wicomico, MID Nanticoke River 14 Lancaster, VA Mulberry Greek-Headwaters 11 Chambers, TX Old River 10 Major Kill Events (@!l million) How Complete are the Data? severity of an event. Neverthe- inadequate number of staff to An important part of data less, almost 80 percent of all investigate all events. collection was to determine by events contained some informa- state the proportion documented tion on the direct cause and 84 - The emphasis a state places of all probable fish kills occur- percent contained at least an on the type of event to investi- ring over the 1 0-year period. approximation of the number of gate. For example, some states Twelve of the 22 states indi- fish killed. only investigate kills of economi- cated that their reporting cally important fish species, programs documented more Factors that Influenced Re- while other states respond to all than 50 percent of all probable porting. The extent to which a kills. kills during the period. The fish-kill event is reported and states that reported the most how completely it is documented - The size of the population complete coverage (76-100%) depends on several factors. surrounding a waterbody. Fish were Maine, New Hampshire, kills are reported more often Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, - How a state assigns responsi- around densely populated areas Delaware, North Carolina, and bility for investigating fish kills. In at least in part because more South Carolina. The two states some states, a single agency is people witness and report the that reported the least amount responsible. In others, responsi- event. Kills occurring in of coverage (11 -25%) were bility is assigned by geographic sparsely settled areas often go California and Washington region or type of waterbody unreported. (Appendix B). (fresh versus marine). In this case, fish-kill information is more The timeliness of the investi- Not all the events documented dispersed and, therefore, more gation. If the investigation does contained the same information difficult to collect. not take place promptly, fish regarding direct causes and, wash downstream, sink, or are numbers of fish killed. Informa- The staff available to investi- eaten by scavengers, lowering tion varied by state and within gate events. In states with small the number and possibly the states, depending on available budgets for fish-kill reporting species of fish reported killed. resources and the perceived programs, there may be an In addition, the contaminant or 4 Introduction environmental condition causing ber). The month with the events took place in 39 counties an event may be diluted or single greatest number of within 14 states. The greatest degraded so that a direct cause events was August, while the concentration of these events can no longer be attributed to a greatest number of fish killed was in Galveston (8) and kill. was in June. Chambers (5) counties in Texas; Anne Arundel (8) and Although no absolute conclu- Geographical Distribution. Wicomico (5) counties in sions can be drawn from fish-kill States reporting the most fish- Maryland; and Beaufort County data alone, combining the data kill events were Florida (1,292), (6), North Carolina. with other information on pollu- Maryland (455), Texas (355), tion releases and environmental and South Carolina (191). The The largest reported fish kill quality can provide useful top five counties with the occurred in the Jolly Rogers insights to analysts and greatest number of events Canal, Jamaica Beach, decisionmakers. were Palm Beach, FIL (383); Galveston County, Texas, e_'' Broward, FL (277); Anne where an estimated 50-million Arundel, MD (182); Dade, FL fish died (Figure 3). The kill .......... .... ....... !@ (87); and Beaufort, SC (73) occurred in June 1980 and was From 1980 to 1989, over 3,650 (Appendix A). attributed to low-dissolved fish-kill events were reported in oxygen from unspecified 533 coastal and near coastal States reporting the most fish sources. The only species counties in 22 states. These killed were Texas (159 million), reported killed was gulf menha- events involved over 407 million Florida (77 million), Maryland den (Brevoortia patronus). fish. The number of events (68 million), Delaware (28 reported was highest in 1986 million) and North Carolina (26 Many different combinations of (519), and the greatest number million) (Appendix A). The top land-use causes and direct of fish killed was in 1980 (138 five counties with the greatest causes result in major fish-kill million) (Table 1). The land-use number of fish killed were events (Table 2). However, the cause, incident, and direct cause Galveston, TX (106 million); majority of these events is most frequently cited were urban Orange, FIL (36 million); Anne characterized by low-dissolved land use, natural events, and Arundel, MD (36 million); Kent, oxygen, high temperatures low-dissolved oxygen. DE (24 million); and Harris, TX (summer months), a large area (23 million) (Appendix A). of water with poor circulation, Trends and Seasonal Varia- and involves small fish such as tions. During the 1 0-year Sources and Causes. The menhaden (Brevoortia sp.) that period, the number of states land-use causes most fre- tend to school in large numbers reporting events in estuarine and quently cited were urban and are very intolerant of low- coastal waters varied from 15 in (13%), industrial (7%), and dissolved oxygen conditions. 1983 to 21 in 1980 and 1981 agriculture (4%). The top three Although events occur where a (Figure 2). Consequently, fish- incidents introducing pollutants relatively toxic substance is kill events are difficult to evaluate into a waterbody were naturally released or spilled causing accurately over time. However, occurring conditions (116%), considerable damage to fish, an upward trend exists in the runoff (7%), and routine these events occur less fre- number of events and a down- releases (5%). The direct quently and tend to be more ward trend in the number of fish causes most frequently cited localized, killing fewer fish. killed nationwide (Figure 2). were low-dissolved oxygen (41 %), wastewater (5%), The families of fish most Seasonal variations play an eutrophication (5%), and commonly involved in a kill important role in the timing of pesticides (4%). event are Clupeidae (menha- fish-kill events. As might be den, shad, herring), expected, the largest number of Centrarchidae (sunfish, bluegill, events (64%) and the highest MajorFishKills. Eighty-six bass), and Cyprinidae (carps, number of fish killed (86%) were individual events occurred minnows, dace, chubs, shin- during the warmest months of where an estimated one million ers). Of the above, Clupeidae the year (May through Septem- or more fish were killed. These are involved in 36 percent of all 5 Introduction fish-kill events and account for Table 2. Land-Use Cause and Direct Cause of Major Fish Kills from 61 percent of the total number 1980-1989 for 22 Coastal States of fish killed. Five sections follow that present Land-use cause/ Total % reports Number % fish killed results for individual coastal Direct cause of kill reports of fish regions: North Atlantic; Middle (millions) Atlantic; South Atlantic; Gulf of Industry Mexico; and Pacific. The Eutrophication 5 1 concluding comments section Wastewater 1 <1 discusses potential uses of the Mixed Chemicals 1 <1 data. Information on the Pesticides 1 <1 number of events and fish killed Subtotal 4 5 8 <1 by region, State, and county, Urban and information on State Low-Dissolved Oxygen 1 1 1 <1 Eutrophication 1 1 1 <1 reporting programs are provided Wastewater 2 2 22 6 in Appendices A and B. Mixed Chemicals 1 1 30 8 Nutrients 1 1 6 2 Subtotal 6 7 60 16 Impoundments Low-Dissolved Oxygen 2 2 6 2 Temperature 1 1 2 1 Subtotal 3 3 8 2 Water-Related Low-Dissolved Oxygen 16 19 64 17 Temperature 5 6 36 10 Eutrophication 3 3 5 1 Stranding 2 2 15 4 Storm Event 1 1 3 1 Salinity Change 3 3 7 2 Subtotal 30 35 129 35 Unspecified 43 50 169 45 Total 86 100 375 100 6 North Atlantic Figure 4. Reported Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989 Maine A4 O"W ,irl New Hampshire Number of Events 4 to 13 2 to 3 El No events reported 'N" Massachusetts @@M int 8 North Atlantic The North Atlantic had the Figure 5. Number of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989 least number of events and least number of fish killed among regions. This can be 10 - 3,919 4,000 partially explained by the 9 - climate and physical features Fish of the estuaries in this region. 8 Killed 140 The number of events re- 7 - -Events 120 C8 ported each year was greatest 6- during the summer months. LU 100 '0 5- The greatest number of a) a) 80 0 events occurred in Penobscot 4- County, Maine. Wastewater -60 discharges, low-dissolved 3 - oxygen, and chemical re- 2 - 40 leases were the three leading 1 - 20 direct causes of fish kills. 0 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 The Data Year In this region, 92 percent of Massachusetts accounted for for more than 100,500 fish reports included the number of the majority of the fish killed in killed. fish killed, 84 percent included the region, with almost 3.9 the direct cause of the event, 77 million or 96 percent of all Trends. The number of percent included the land-use reported fish killed between events reported from 1980 to cause, and 67 percent included 1980 and 1989. However, 1989 does not appear to show the type of incident (Appendix most of the total for Massa- a trend (Figure 5). However, A). This region had the second chusetts can be attributed to an apparent seasonal pattern most complete reporting of the one event that occurred in exists in the region. The number of fish killed and direct July 1983 in Wellfleet Harbor majority of events and the causes among regions. Of the in Cape Cod Bay. Over 3.9 greatest number of fish killed states in this region, Maine's million fish were reported were reported in July, August, reporting was the most com- killed in this event. The and September (Figure 6). plete and New Hampshire's was incident was reported as a This seasonal pattern exists the least complete. natural event, and the direct across the Nation, with the cause cited was low-dissolved majority of kills occurring Fish-Kill Events oxygen. No other single during the summer months. event in the region accounted Fish-kill events were reported in 15 of the 31 counties in the study area (16 counties in Maine, 8 in New Hampshire, Figure 6. Number of Events and Fish Killed by Month, 1980-1989 and 7 in Massachusetts) (Figure 4). 20 - 400 392 The North Atlantic had the 10 15- CD fewest number of reported CD 8- events (48) and least number of 4 C fish killed (4,090,300). Maine T 10- 6 - > LU accounted for over half of the 4- fish-kill events reported in the 5- U_ 2 OF, region with 28, followed by a,,@L 1 Massachusetts (19) and New J,F M A M i J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Hampshire (1). Month Month 9 North Atlantic Sources and Causes discharges, low-dissolved Figure 7. Number of Fish-Kill oxygen, and pH were the three Events by Type of A number of factors may leading direct causes of fish kills Incident* account for the relatively low (Figure 8). Industry and agricul- number of fish kills observed in ture were the two leading land- the North Atlantic. The climate use causes associated with fish Drawdown Routine release of this region is colder than kills in the region (Figure 9). Spill (13%) (34%) other regions. Therefore, fish The other type of event that led (13%) are subjected to less thermal to a substantial number of kills stress. The generally fast- in the region is naturally occur- flowing rivers in the region and ring phenomenon caused by a the strong tides and basin combination of environmental geometry in many of its estuar- factors (i.e., water and air ies result in well mixed and temperatures, wind, precipita aerated waterbodies not highly tion, and resident flora). Most of All hers susceptible to stratification and (15%) Natural associated low-dissolved these events can be attributed (25%) oxygen levels. This is in to one or more of the following: contrast to the more placid low-dissolved oxygen; predatory Figure 8. Number of Fish-Kill coastal plain rivers and shallow stress; high temperatures; algal Events by Direct drowned-river systems in the blooms; and/or bacterial infec- Cause* Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, tions. and Gulf of Mexico. Finally, the Stranding North Atlantic covers the In Maine, all 28 of the reported (7%) All others smallest land area of the five events indicated the direct pH (32%) regions, has the lowest percent- cause of the kill. Wastewater (10%) age of agricultural land (a was the direct cause in nine of potentially important land-use the 28 events. Twenty-five of cause), and contains only 4 the 28 reported events indicated the land-use cause of the kill. percent of all the existing point Industrial land use was the land- sources in the five coastal regions (NOAA, 1990). As a use cause in 19 of the 25 events. In 25 of the 28 reported result, impacts due to human events, a direct cause was Low-dissolved Wastewater activities are less severe in this linked with a land-use cause. oxygen (29%) region. (22%) The sources and causes of fish In New Hampshire, the direct kills can be broken down into cause of the only reported fish- Figure 9. Number of Fish-Kill two different types of events. kill event was inorganic chemi- Events by Land-Use One type is related to human cals/metals, and the land-use Cause* activities such as routine cause was urban land use. Urban All others releases of wastewater or In Massachusetts, 12 of the 19 (8%) (3%) mixed chemicals from a variety reported events indicated the Water- of different sources (e.g., direct cause of the kill. Low- related trucking accidents, various dissolved oxygen was the direct (19%) industries, sewage treatment cause in four of the 12 events. plants, and pig farms). Eleven of the 19 reported events indicated the land-use Routine releases were the most cause of the kill. Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 frequently cited incidents land use was the land-use MIT M causing these fish kills (Figure io" - 7). The majority of the routine cause in six of the 11 events. In Agri ultural Industrial releases was emitted from nine of the 19 reported events, (19%) (51%) industrial plants. Wastewater a direct cause was linked with a land-use cause. *Does not include information from unspecified events. 10 North Atlantic Data tables containing the a fish-kill event. Information number of events and fish killed concerning each state's pro- by county, state, region, year, gram organization, investigative direct cause, land-use cause, procedures, and use of data are and incident are in Appendix A. summarized in Appendix B. Not606tv"466"d Maine has three agencies that T;";j .... .... . may be involved in the fish-kill investigation process: the o m 8@'@ @@ -11 The greatest number of kills (13) Department of Environmental in the region occurred in Protection (DEP); Department of Penobscot County, Maine. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; Twelve of these were attributed and the Department of Marine to releases from industrial land Resources. DEP is the only use. This county contains 45 organization that provided fish- industrial sources, six of which kill data to NOAA. The state are related to production of indicated that field visits are paper products. likely to be made when an event is reported (i.e., more than 75 Mattanawcook stream in percent of the time). Penobscot County was the site of nine fish-kill events between New Hampshire's Marine 1986 and 1989, eight of which Division, within the Department were caused by a single pulp/ of Fish and Game, has primary paper processing operation responsibility for all fish kills located on this stream. In 1989, occurring in the state. They also the State took legal action provided fish-kill data for this against the plant. As a result, report. They conduct field this plant has not been involved investigations of fish-kill events in any other reported fish-kill approximately 5 percent of the events. No other stream in the time and are more likely to region had more than two events respond to an event if large during the 1 0-year period. numbers of fish are involved in the kill. The only other area in the region where a large number of kills Massachusetts has the largest was reported was Barnstable program of the three North County, Massachusetts, with ten Atlantic states. The responsibil- kills between 1980 and 1989. ity is shared between two However, most were due to agencies: Division of Marine natural causes. Fisheries (marine- and coastal- @M` @!11.1' A@l related kills), and the Division of 84" te Ae"'p'oefing Fisheries and Wildlife (freshwa- ter kills). Both provided fish-kill Tograms,'jjqj@ d ata to NOAA. They also Each of the three North Atlantic reported that field visits are states uses a different approach standard procedure when an when collecting fish-kill data. event is reported (i.e., more than The discussion below highlights 75 percent of the time). which agencies in each state are involved in fish-kill reporting and when they are most likely to make an on-site investigation of Middle Atlantic Figure 10. Reported Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989 Massachusetts New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island 6, Connecticut New Jersey Maryla 0 Delaware D Number of Events 51 to 200 Virginia 26 to 50 11 to 25 i to 10 El No events reported 12 Middle A t1an The Middle Atlantic had the Figure 11. Number of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989 second highest number of events and number of fish killed among regions. This 200- 5 2,806 3,000 can be partially explained by 180- 2,177 2,529 the climate and physical - 160- features of the estuaries in - 500 this region. The number of 140- C. Event C@ events reported each year C@ 120 400 was greatest during the W _0 100- Fish summer months. The great- a) CD V_ - Killed- JUQ 0 est number of events oc- curred in Anne Arundel County, Maryland Low- 60 200 U_ dissolved oxygen, disease, 40- and wastewater discharges 20- 100 were the three leading direct - causes of fish kills. 0- 1 Tt TI 0 80 81 82 83 84 95 86 87 88 89 Year 4@- Assessment of the important District of Columbia, and 60 in 59 percent of all reported fish sources and causes of events in Virginia) (Figure 10). killed between 1980 and 1989. this region is hampered by the Twenty events in Maryland gaps in cause-related informa- This region had the second involved the death of over a tion reported by each state. In highest number of reported million fish. Eight of these this region, 65 percent of the events (1,033) and fish killed occurred in Anne Arundel County reports included the number of (1115,339,200). Maryland and five in Wicomico County. fish killed, 69 percent included accounted for over one-third of the direct cause of the event, 48 the fish-kill events reported in Trends. The number of events percent included the land-use the region (455), followed by reported from 1980 to 1989 cause, and 45 percent included New York (151); Delaware shows an upward trend (Figure the type of incident (Appendix (120); New Jersey (112); 11). From 1980 to 1984, the A). The Middle Atlantic had the Virginia (98); Connecticut (55); largest number of fish-kill events most incomplete reporting of the Rhode Island (18); Pennsylvania occurring in a single year was 81 number of fish killed and direct (16); and Massachusetts (8). in 1980. However, from 1985 to causes among regions. Of the 1989, at least 100 events states in this region, Maryland also had the highest occurred each year, with the Connecticut's reporting was the number of fish killed in the largest being 177 in 1988. A most complete and New region, with about 68 million or seasonal pattern also exists in Jersey's was the most incorn- plete. Figure 1 ,2. Number of Events and Fish Killed by Month, 1980-1989 Flksh-Kill Events 300 - 400 301 393 Fish-kill events were reported in @n 247 0 167 113 of the 149 counties (includ- C) ing the District of Columbia) in 200 - 30- the study area (5 counties in Massachusetts, 5 in Rhode LU 20- 100 - Island, 8 in Connecticut, 20 in En 10- New York, 20 in New Jersey, 7 U_ - 247 16,30- in Pennsylvania, 3 in Delaware, 0 - 0- 21 in Maryland including the J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Month Month 13 Middle Atlantic this region. Most events were events. In only three of the Figure 13. Number of Fish-Kill reported between June and eight events was a land-use Events by Type of August (Figure 12). However, cause reported along with a Incident* the greatest numbers of fish killed direct cause. were reported in February, August, and September. This In Rhode Island, 13 of the 18 Accidental release spill F (7%) seasonal pattern exists across reported events indicated the All (8%) the Nation, with the majority of direct cause of the kill. Low- others kills occurring during the summer dissolved oxygen was the direct (9-/,0) months. cause in nine of the 13 events. L Five of the 18 reported events indicated the land-use cause of e Sources and Causes the kill. Urban land use was th land-use cause in two of the five events. A direct cause was Natural A number of factors may account associated with a land-use Routine release (65%) for the relatively high number of cause in only five of the 18 %) fish kills in the Middle Atlantic. reported events. The shallow drowned-river Figure 14. Number of Fish-Kill systems in the region and the In Connecticut, 42 of the 55 Events by Direct weak tides and basin geometry in reported events indicated the Cause* many of its estuaries result in direct cause of the kill. Low- poorly mixed and aerated dissolved oxygen was the direct Chlorine Low-dissolved waterbodies susceptible to cause in nine of the 42 events. Wastewater (6%) oxygen stratification and associated low- Seventeen of the 55 reported (6%) (41%) dissolved oxygen levels. This events indicated the land-use region also has the greatest cause of the kill. Industrial land human population density and use was the land-use cause in the greatest percentage of urban six of the 17 events. In only 16 !Oill land among regions (NOAA, of the 55 reported events was a 1990). direct cause linked with a specific land use. Naturally occurring events Disease dominate the region, with the top In New York, 116 of the 151 (12%) All others two direct causes reported as reported events indicated the (35%) low-dissolved oxygen levels and direct cause of the kill. Low- disease (Figures 13 and 14). In dissolved oxygen was the direct Figure 15. Number of Fish-Kill addition, a significant impact is cause in 18 of the 116 events. Events by Land-Use caused by routine wastewater Ninety-three of the 151 reported Cause* releases and/or spills occurring in events indicated the land-use urban and industrial land-use cause of the kill. Impoundments All others areas (Figure 15). These events were the land-use cause Impoundment 1 (5%) reflect kills related to inputs from identified in 33 of the 93 events. (13%) Water- human activities. In 86 of the 151 reported related events, a land-use cause was (46%) In Massachusetts, five of the reported along with a direct eight reported events indicated cause. the direct cause of the kill. Low- dissolved oxygen was the direct In New Jersey, 64 of the 112 cause reported in two of the five reported events indicated the events. Three of the eight direct cause of the kill. Pesti- reported events indicated the cides were the direct cause in IndustriI land-use cause of the kill. nine of the 64 events. Thirty- (14%) Urban Industrial land use was the land- three of the 112 reported events - (22%) use cause in two of the three indicated the land-use cause of *Does not include information from unspecified events. 14 Middle Atlantic the kill. Urban land use was the the land-use cause in 17 of the State Reporting land-use cause in 16 of the 33 50 events. In 49 of the 98 Programs events. A direct cause was reported events, the land-use associated with a specific land cause was linked with the direct Each of the nine Middle Atlantic use in only 31 of the 112 cause. states uses a different ap- reported events. Data tables containing the proach when collecting fish-kill In Pennsylvania, ten of the 16 number of events and fish killed data. The discussion below reported events indicated the by county, state, region, year, highlights which agencies in direct cause of the kill. Pesti- direct cause, land-use cause, each state are involved in fish- cides were the direct cause in and incident are in Appendix A. kill reporting and when they are three of the ten events. Thir- most likely to make an on-site teen of the 16 reported events Hots'pots and' investigation of a fish-kill event. Information concerning each indicated the land-use cause of Rec'urring, Kills state's program organization, the kill. Urban land use was the land-use cause in six of the 13 investigative procedures, and events. In 10 of the 16 reported Two counties in Maryland use of data are summarized in events, a direct cause was reported the highest number of Appendix B. linked with a land-use cause. fish-kill events for the Middle 'Atlantic region. One hundred Massachusetts (see the North In Delaware, 72 of the 120 and eighty-two events were Atlantic region). reported events indicated the reported in Anne Arundel County direct cause of the kill. Low- (accounting for 31 % of all Rhode Island has three dissolved oxygen was the direct reported fish kills in the region), different divisions within the cause in 36 of the 72 events. and 47 events occurred in Department of Environmental Thirty-three of the 120 reported Baltimore County. Most of these Management (DEM) that may events indicated a land-use kills were attributed to low- be involved in the fish-kill cause of the kill. Urban land dissolved oxygen levels. investigation process. These use was the land-use cause in divisions are Enforcement ten of the 33 events. In only 30 The waterbody having the most (handles initial response and of the 120 reported events was events in this region was the assessment), Fish and Wildlife a land-use cause reported Magothy River Basin (43 events) (responds only if kill occurs in a along with a direct cause. in Anne Arundel County, Mary- pond or lake, or if only one fish land. This river has a history of species is involved and less In Maryland, 333 of the 455 over-enrichment problems. than 100 fish are killed), and reported events indicated the However, this situation was Water Resources (handles direct cause of the kill. Low- further exacerbated in February pollution-related kills and works dissolved oxygen was the direct 1986 when the waste from a jointly with Fish and Wildlife on cause in 200 of the 333 events. break in a sewage line was large kills). The Water Re- Of the 455 reported events, 249 discharged into the river. sources Division is the only indicated the land-use cause of Twenty-four of the 43 reported office that provided fish-kill data the kill. Water-related land use events for this river occurred for this report. However, was the land-use cause in 188 between May and October 1986. because each division should of the 249 events. A direct The Hudson River/Raritan Bay provide full documentation to cause was associated with a area, which traverses seven New each other for all fish kills, data specific land use in 241 of the York counties and four New provided should be complete 455 reported events. Jersey counties, was another for the state. Before May 1988, waterbody for which numerous the state had no formal fish kill In Virginia, 60 of the 98 re- events were reported. Nineteen response policy. Now, field ported events indicated the fish-kill events were reported for visits are made when: a large direct cause of the kill. Low- this waterbody between 1980 number of fish is involved (this dissolved oxygen was the direct and 1989. However, most of the state's cutoff is 100 f i sh); the cause in 12 of the 60 events. records for these events did not public becomes concerned; Fifty of the 98 reported events contain information on the cause and/or personnel are available indicated the land-use cause of of the kills. to respond. the kill. Industrial land use was 15 Middle Atlantic Connecticut has two divisions Pennsylvania's fish-kill program (Water Management and consists of three agencies: the Fisheries) under the Depart- Department of Environmental ment of Environmental Protec- Resources' Bureau of Water tion (DEP) that respond to and Quality; the Fish Commission's document fish kills. The Water Bureau of Law Enforcement; and Management Division is the Emergency Management primarily concerned with kills Agency. Due to a staff shortage caused by industrial dis- at the Fish Commission, fish-kill charges, while the Fisheries data for this report were obtained Division responds to and from the EPA data base. Field investigates all kills. Only visits to fish-kill sites are made Fisheries provided fish-kill data the majority of the time (i.e., for this report (their response more than 75 percent of the included data from both divi- time). sions). The Fisheries contact indicated that field visits are Delaware's program is con- generally standard procedure ducted by the Department of when an event is reported. Natural Resources and Environ- mental Control's (DNREC) New York has five divisions Division of Fish and Wildlife. The within its Department of Envi- Fish and Wildlife Division pro- ronmental Conservation (DEC) vided fish-kill data for this report. that may be involved in the fish- It reports that field visits are kill investigation process: Fish standard procedure and they and Wildlife; Law Enforcement; respond more than 75 percent of Water; Hazardous Substances the time. Regulation; and Marine and Coastal Resources. The Fish Maryland's program is con- and Wildlife Division provided ducted by the Water Quality statewide fish-kill data for this Monitoring Division, Department report. An on-site investigation of the Environment. The Water is made when a large number Quality Monitoring Division of fish is involved in the kill and/ provided fish-kill data for this or when the public becomes report. Field visits are likely to concerned. be made when a large number of fish is involved in a kill or when New Jersey has two divisions the public becomes concerned. within the Department of Environmental Protection that Virginia has two agencies that respond to fish-kill events. The may be involved in the fish-kill Fish, Game, and Wildlife investigation process: the Water Division handles inland kills, Control Board (WCB) and the while the Marine Fisheries Department of Game and Inland Division responds to coastal Fisheries. The WCB provided water kills. However, only the fish-kill data for this report. Field Fish, Game, and Wildlife visits are likely to be made when regional offices provided fish-kill a large number of fish is involved data for this report. Field visits in the kill, the public becomes are likely to be made when a concerned, and/or personnel are large number of fish is involved available to respond. or when the public becomes concerned. 16 South Atlantic Figure 16. Reported Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989 Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia T Number of Events 0 91 to 400 0 41 to 90 M 11 to40 13 1 to 10 0 No events reported Florida 18 South Atlantic The South Atlantic had the Figure 17. Number of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989 highest number of events and the third highest number of fish killed among regions. 250- 5,475 6,000 This can be partially ex- 2,821 plained by the climate and 225- - physical features of the 200- -350 estuaries in this region. The R h 175- Killed Evenis number of events reported - 300 each year was greatest during W150- W 250 the summer months. The 125- greatest number of events 200 0 CL 100- occurred in Palm Beach a) 150 County, Florida. Low-dis- 75- U_ solved oxygen, eutrophica- 50- 100 tion, and pesticides were the 50 three leading direct causes of 25 fish kills. 01 0 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 The Data Year In this region, 96 percent of the 1,042, followed by South Caro- shows an upward trend (Figure reports included the number of lina (191); North Carolina (153); 17). From 1980 to 1984, the fish killed, 84 percent included Georgia (33); and Virginia (31). largest number of fish-kill events the direct cause of the event, 26 occurring in a single year was percent included the land-use Florida also had the highest 133 in 1981. However, from cause, and 25 percent included number of fish killed in the 1985 to 1989, at least 150 the type of incident (Appendix region, with over 64 million or 67 events occurred each year, with A). The South Atlantic had the percent of all reported fish killed the largest being 243 in 1986. most complete reporting of the between 1980 and 1989. Eight An apparent seasonal pattern direct cause and number of fish events occurred in Florida in also exists in this region. The killed among regions. Of the which over a million fish were majority of events and the states in this region, Florida's killed. Four of these occurred in greatest number of fish killed reporting was the most com- Marion County and two in were reported between June and plete and Georgia's was the Orange County. (For more August (Figure 18). This sea- most incomplete. information on Florida, see inset sonal pattern exists across the on page 21). Nation, with the majority of kills Fish-Kill Events occurring during the summer Trends. The number of events months. Fish-kill events were reported in reported from 1980 to 1989 79 of the 125 counties in the study area (4 in Virginia, 44 in North Carolina, 24 in South Figure 4` Number of Events and Fish Killed by Month, 1980-1989 Carolina, 29 in Georgia, and 24 in Florida) (Figure 16). 300 - 400 376 217 C) This region had the highest C) 200 - 6 100- number of reported events C> (1,450) and third highest _0 - number of fish killed .2? 100 - @2 50- (95,291,300). Florida ac- A counted for almost three quar- U_ ters of the fish-kill events 0 0 P 0_0@@ @JL J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D reported in the region with Month Month 19 South Atlantic . ...... Seventy-nine of the 153 report ed Causes Figureig. Number of Fish-Kill . ..... iii7_71i'7775 "'_"T events indicated the land-use Events by Type of A number of factors may cause of the kill. Water-related Incident* account for the relatively high land use was the land-use cause number of fish kills observed in in 42 of the 79 events. In 78 of Routine Accidental the South Atlantic. The shallow the 153 reported events, a direct release release cause was associated with a (8%) (5%) drowned-river systems in the land-use cause. All region and the weak tides and others basin geometry in many of its In South Carolina, 138 of the (9%) estuaries result in poorly mixed 191 reported events indicated and aerated waterbodies the direct cause of the kill. Low- susceptible to stratification and dissolved oxygen was the direct associated low-dissolved cause in 60 of the 138 events. oxygen levels. This region also Nineteen of the 191 reported has the second largest total Runoff events indicated the land-use Nat al (46%) estuarine drainage area, the cause of the kill. Urban land use (32%) highest intensity of pesticide was the land-use cause in 12 Of application, and the second the 19 events. In only 17 of the Figure 20. Number of Fish-Kill highest application rate of 191 reported events was a direct Events by Direct nutrients among regions cause linked with a specific land- (NOAA, 1990). use cause. Pesticides Kills associated with runoff from In Georgia, 27 of the 33 re- Eutro- (5%) Temperature urban and agricultural land use ported events indicated the phication (3%) dominate the region, with the direct cause of the kill. Waste- (10%) top two direct causes reported water discharge was the direct as low-dissolved oxygen levels cause in six of the 27 events. and eutrophication (Figures 19, Twenty-two of the 33 reported 20 and 21). In addition, natu- events indicated the land-use rally occurring events had a cause of the kill. Urban land use significant impact on the was the land-use cause identi- waterbodies in this region fied in 11 of the 22 events. In 22 All others (Figure 19). of the 33 reported events, a (13%) Low-dissolved land-use cause was reported oxygen In Virginia, 21 of the 31 re- along with a direct cause. (69%) Ported events indicated the direct cause of the kill. Low- Figure 21. Number of Fish-Kill In Florida, 929 of the 1,042 Events by Land-Use dissolved oxygen was the direct reported events indicated the Cause* cause reported in eight of the direct cause of the kill. Low- 21 events. Fifteen of the 31 dissolved oxygen was the direct reported events indicated the Impoundment F- All others cause in 728 of the 929 events. %) (7%) land-use cause of the kill. Two hundred and thirty-nine of Water-related land use was the the 1,042 reported events land-use cause in eight of the indicated the land-use cause of 15 events. In 15 of the 31 the kill. Urban land use was the reported events, a land-use land-use cause in 158 of the 239 cause was reported along with events. In only 228 of the 1,042 a direct cause. reported events was a direct In North Carolina, 108 of the cause associated with a specific Agri- Urban land-use cause. 153 reported events indicated cultural Water- (50%) - Data tables containing the (20%) the direct cause of the kill. Low (12%) related dissolved oxygen was the direct number of events and fish killed cause in 38 of the 108 events. by county, state, region, year, *Does not include information from unspecified events. 20 South Atlankc direct cause, land-use cause, because these coastal waters North Carolina's f is h - ki I I and incident are in Appendix A. were under severe environ- program is primarily covered by mental stress. three agencies: the Depart- Hotspots and ment of Environment, Health, Recurring Kills Florida - A Special Case and Natural Resources (re- sponds to all kills to help Two counties in Florida reported Florida ranks first in number of determine cause); the Depart- the highest number of fish-kill events (1,292) and number of fish ment of Crime Control and killed (over 77 million) among Public Safety (involved with events for the South Atlantic states.. Several, reasons help to emergency management and region. Three hundred and explain this. First, the entire state pollution testing); and the eighty-three events were (54,153 sq. mi.) is defined as reported in Palm Beach County ,coastal" (Bureau of Census, Wildlife Commission (deals with (accounting for 37% of all 1988). The state with the second surveying kill sites to determine largest area is California (39,575 number and species of fish reported fish kills in the region), and 277 events occurred in sq. mi.) (NOAA, 1987). killed, and their economic value). In addition, through a Broward County. Most of these Second, Florida has a large cooperative effort between two kills were attributed to low- number o ,f artificial canals, lakes, dissolved oxygen levels. and impoundments located in and divisions (Environmental around residential subdivisions. Management and Marine The St. Johns River Basin which These waters are prone to Fisheries) in the Department of traverses six Florida counties eutrophication problems. Kills Environment Health and (Brevard, Clay, Duval, Marion, occurring in them are easily Natural Resources, the Pamlico Seminole, and Volusia) was the observed and frequently reported Estuarine Response Team waterbody for which the most because of their proximity to the (PERT) was formed in 1988 to events (29) were reported in this sIurrounding communities. respond to the increasing region. This river has a history Third, the state's high year-round number of fish-kill events in the of over-enrichment problems. temperatures and extremely high Pamilco River/Sound. The The river also receives dis- summer temperatures greatly Department of Environment, charges of irrigation water from contribute to kills associated with Health, and Natural Resources' surrounding agricultural farms low-dissolved oxygen levels and Division of Environmental (citrus and sugarcane fields). eutrophication. Management provided fish-kill Over half of the events were data for this report. It reported caused by low-dissolved oxygen that field visits are standard conditions. The Pamlico River, 'State' Reporting procedure, and they respond which flows through three North more than 75 percent of the Carolina counties (Beaufort, Programs time. Hyde, and Pamlico), was Each of the five South Atlantic South Carolina's fish-kill another waterbody for which states uses a different ap- program is run by two agen- numerous events were reported. proach when collecting fish-kill cies: the Bureau of Solid and Twenty-three fish-kill events data. The discussion below Hazardous Waste Management were reported for this waterbody highlights which agencies in in South Carolina's Department between 1981 and 1989. The each state are involved in fish- of Health and Environmental majority of the reports cited kill reporting and when they are Control (SCDHEC); and the some type of naturally occurring most likely to make an on-site Department of Wildlife and condition as the direct cause investigation of a fish-kill event. Marine Resources, The such as low-dissolved oxygen Information concerning each Department of Wildlife and levels, disease, bacteria, state's program organization, Marine Resources is primarily fungus, and/or changes in investigative procedures, and concerned with kills occurring salinity. use of data are summarized in in public waters, while the Florida and North Carolina have Appendix B. SCDHEC responds and set up special programs to investigates all kills. Only monitor these two waterbodies Virginia (see the Middle SCDHEC provided fish-kill data Atlantic region). for this report. An on-site 21 South Atlantic investigation is made when a large number of fish is involved in the kill and/or when the public becomes concerned. Georgia has three divisions within its Department of Natural Resources that may be involved in the fish-kill investigation process: Environmental Protec- tion (initial contact and response that confirms a fish-kill event); Coastal Resources (investigates marine and coastal water kills); and Game and Fish Division (investigates freshwater events). The Coastal Resource and the Game and Fish Divisions pro- vided fish-kill data for this report. They reported that field visits are standard procedure and that they respond more than 75 percent of the time. Florida's fish-kill reporting is primarily covered by two agen- cies: the Department of Environ- mental Regulation (DER) which consists of a central office and six district offices; and the Game and Freshwater Fish Commis- sion which consists of a central and five regional offices. The central office and one of the district offices of the DER, four of the regional offices of the Game and Freshwater Fish Commis- sion, and the Bioenvironmental Services Division of Duval County all provided fish-kill data for this report. The central DER office reported that field visits are likely to be made when the public becomes concerned. 22 Mississippi Alabama Georgia Louisiana Texas Florida Number of Events 51 to 80 21 to 50 11 to 20 1 to 10 No events reported Gulf of Mexico The Gulf of Mexico had the Figure 23. Number of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989 third highest number of events and the highest number of fish killed among 100- 1 8 11,000 regions. This can be partially 90 - 3,779 explained by the climate and physical features of the 80- Events 1,050 Fsh estuaries in this region. The 70- Klilled number of events reported 4 900 C (D 60- each year was greatest during > W 750 the summer months. The 70 50 _0 a) greatest number of events 0 -600 cL 40 - occurred in Galveston 0) 1 Ir 450 County, Texas. Low- 30- LL dissolved oxygen, storm 20- -300 events, and wastewater 10- 150 discharges were the three - leading direct causes of fish 0- 80 81 82 83 1 841 85 86 87 88 89 kills. Year The Data In this region, 75 percent of the region (355), followed by Florida However, an apparent seasonal reports included the number of (250); Louisiana (172); Alabama pattern exists in this region. fish killed, 84 percent included (44); Mississippi (7); and Georgia Most events were reported the direct cause of the event, 54 (2). during May, August, and percent included the land-use September (Figure 24). How- cause, and 50 percent included Texas also had the highest ever, the greatest numbers of the type of incident (Appendix number of fish killed in the fish killed were reported in June, A). The Gulf of Mexico had the region, with approximately August, and September (Figure fourth most complete reporting 159 million or 85 percent of all 24). This seasonal pattern of the direct cause and number reported fish killed between 1980 exists across the Nation, with of fish killed among regions. Of and 1989. Twenty-one events in the majority of kills occurring the states in this region, Texas involved the death of over during the summer months. Alabama's reporting was the a million fish. Eight of these most complete and Louisiana's occurred in Galveston County Sources and Causes was the most incomplete. and five in Chambers County. Trends. The number of events A number of factors may Fish-Kill Events account for the relatively high reported from 1980 to 1989 does number of events and fish killed Fish-kill events were reported in not show any trend (Figure 23). 100 of the 164 counties in the study area (4 counties in Figure24. Numberof Even Its and Fish Killed by Month, 1980-1989 Georgia, 43 in Florida, 14 in Alabama, 17 in Mississippi, 39 140 - 1,000 in Louisiana, and 47 in Texas) 907 _ 382 -320 (Figure 22). 120 - 100 - loo- This region had the third highest t a) 80 - '0 number of reported events (830) > W and the highest number of fish 60 - 50- killed (188,161,000). Texas 40 - D - - A U_ accounted for almost half of the 20 . . . . . . 0 0 fish-kill events reported in the J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Month Month 25 Gulf of Mexico in the Gulf of Mexico. This event. Both of the reported Figure 25. Number of Fish-Kill region has the highest percent- events indicated the land-use Events by Type of age of agricultural land, applica- cause of the kill. Industrial and Incident* tion of fertilizers and pesticides, urban land use were the land- industrial point sources, and use causes for these events. A Accidental municipal wastewater treatment direct cause was associated release plants among regions (NOAA, with a land-use cause in one of Routine (12%) 1990). Estuaries in this region the two reported events. release Natural have an average depth of eight (14%) (37%) feet, the shallowest among In Alabama, 40 of the 44 regions, which restricts their reported events indicated the ability to assimilate the loadings direct cause of the kill. Low- of pollutants mentioned above dissolved oxygen was the direct (NOAA, 1990). These factors, in cause in 23 of the 40 events. addition to the hot/humid climate, Sixteen of the 44 reported .. . ....... contribute to waterbodies that events indicated the land-use All others are frequently nutrient-enriched cause of the kill. Urban land (18%) Runoff and thermally stressed. The use was the land-use cause in (19%) result is frequent low-dissolved ten of the 16 events. In only 16 Figure 26. Number of Fish-Kill oxygen levels, particularly in the of the 44 reported events was a Events by Direct summer, that can lead to fish direct cause linked with a Cause* kills. specific land-use cause. Temperature Naturally occurring events In Mississippi, six of the seven Storm (6%) Low-dissolved dominate the region, with the top reported events indicated the event oxygen two direct causes reported as direct cause of the kill. A (7%) (46%) low-dissolved oxygen levels and change in salinity was the direct wastewater (Figures 25 and 26). cause in three of the six events. In addition, a significant impact is Five of the seven reported caused by runoff from storm events indicated the land-use events in urban areas and/or by cause of the kill. Water-related I routine and accidental releases land use was the land-use from industrial land uses (Figure cause identified in all five of the Waste- 27). These events reflect kills events. In five of the seven water related to impacts from human reported events, a land-use (10%) All others activities. cause was reported along with a (31%) direct cause. In Florida, 219 of the 250 Figure 27. Number of Fish-Kill reported events indicated the In Louisiana, 146 of the 172 Events by Land-Use direct cause of the kill. Low- reported events indicated the Cause* dissolved oxygen was the direct direct cause of the kill. Low- cause reported in 116 of the 219 dissolved oxygen was the direct All others events. Of the 250 reported cause in 63 of the 146 events. Impoundment (7%) events, 109 indicated the land- Of the 172 reported events, 108 (15%) Urban use cause of the kill. Urban land indicated the land-use cause of (33%) use was the land-use cause in the kill. Impoundments were 56 of the 109 events. In only 106 the land-use cause in 36 of the of the 250 events was a land-use 108 events. A direct cause was cause reported along with a associated with a specific land- direct cause. use cause in 107 of the 172 reported events. Inclustri I In Georgia, one of the two Water- reported events indicated the In Texas, 291 of the 355 (22%) related direct cause of the kill. Waste- reported events indicated the (23%) water was the direct cause in this direct cause of the kill. Low- *Does not include information from unspecified events. 26 Gulf of Mexico dissolved oxygen was the direct and temperature. Five of the 17 ment of Wildlife, Fisheries and cause in 119 of the 291 events. events were caused by releases Parks. The two bureaus within Of the 355 reported events, 208 of cooling water from power DEQ are Pollution Control indicated the land-use cause of plants. (responsible for all state waters) the kill. Water-related land use and Marine Resources (may was the land-use cause in 67 of The only other area in the region investigate some coastal kills). the 208 events. A direct cause where a large number of kills The Bureau of Pollution Control was associated with a specific was reported was Collier is the office that provided the land-use cause in 201 of the County in Florida, with 49 events fish-kill data for this report. Field 355 reported events. between 1980 and 1989. Most visits to fish-kill sites are made of these kills were due to low- more than 75 percent of the Data tables containing the dissolved oxygen and/or exces- time. number of events and fish killed sive nutrient loadings. by county, state, region, year, Louisiana's fish-kill program is direct cause, land-use cause, State Reporting conducted by three agencies: and incident are in Appendix A. Programs the Department of Environmen- tal Quality (DEQ); the Depart Hotspots and,,, Each of the six Gulf of Mexico ment of Wildlife and Fisheries Recur ring Kills I states uses a different approach (DWF); and the Department of when collecting fish-kill data. Agriculture. The DWF investi- gates kills caused by naturally Two counties in Texas reported The discussion below highlights occurring fish diseases, while the highest number of fish-kill which agencies in each state are the DEO responds to and events for the Gulf of Mexico involved in fish-kill reporting and investigates all kills. DEQ region: Galveston County (72) when they are most likely to provided the fish-kill data for this and Harris County (66). make an on-site investigation of report. The DEQ contact Galveston County had the a fish-kill event. Information indicated that field visits are highest number of fish killed concerning each state's program generally made when an event (almo .st 106 million) of all the organization, investigative is reported. counties in the entire study procedures, and use of data are area. Half of these kills were summarized in Appendix B. Texas has two different agen- attributed to low-dissolved cies that respond to and docu- oxygen levels that were not Florida (see the South Atlantic ment fish kills: the Texas Park associated with a land-use region). and Wildlife Department cause. Georgia (see the South Atlantic (TPWD) and the Texas Water Galveston Bay was the region). Commission (TWC). The TWC waterbody for which the most has the lead on water-quality events (28) were reported in Alabama has two agencies that problems relating to discharges, this region. Large portions of may be involved in the fish-kill while the TPWD responds to, Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, investigation process: the investigates, and is responsible Harris, and Liberty counties are Department of Environmental for recovering damages to fish in the Galveston Bay estuarine Management (DEM) and the and wildlife for all kills. The drainage area (EDA). Taken Department of Conservation and TPWD provided statewide fish- kill data for this report. Field together, these counties contain Natural Resources. The DEM visits are likely to be made the highest concentration of provided the fish-kill data for this when: a large number of fish is point sources in the Nation's report. Field visits to fish-kill involved in a kill; the public coastal area. Fifteen percent of sites are made more than 75 becomes concerned; personnel all industrial point sources and percent of the time. are available to respond; a municipal wastewater treatment responsible party can be identi- plants in the study area are Mississippi has two agencies fied; and/or the kill may be located in the Galveston Bay that may be involved in the fish- related to a particular cause or EDA. Seventeen of the 28 kills kill investigation process: the contaminant. in the Galveston Bay EDA were Department of Environmental related to low-dissolved oxygen Quality (DEQ); and the Depart- 27 Pacific J@ 8 'Rgt@re,,28. ',",',',,'-,eDoiI6d R�h-KiII Evehts,by Countyj 1980-191, 9 Washington Oregon 24 Number of Events 0 21 to 40 M 11 to 20 IM 6 to 10 El 1 to 5 El No events reported California 28 Pacific The Pacific had the fourth Fi ure 29. Nurnber of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989 highest number of events and Q number of fish killed among 100- 3,500 regions. This can be partially 3,048 explained by the climate and 90- physical features of the 80- estuaries in this region. The - 700 70- number of events reported En - - 600 8 z - C@ each year was greatest a) 60- during the summer months. W - 500 -0 50- Fish The greatest number of V Killed 0 - 400 events occurred in King CL 40- County, Washington. Low- cc Events - 300 30- ILL dissolved oxygen, pesticides, - and animal wastes were the 20 200 three leading direct causes of 100 fish kills. 10 0 __0 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 B8 89 . .. ........... .. "T".60,10sta ......... . Year In this region, 88 percent of the region, with over 3.3 million or largest being 49 in 1981. reports included the number of 77 percent of all reported fish However, from 1983 to 1989, fish killed, 73 percent included killed between 1980 and 1989. no more than 28 fish-kill events the direct cause of the event, 47 Seventy-nine percent of these occurred in a single year percent included the land-use fish were killed in a single (except in 1987 when 38 cause, and 39 percent included event that occurred in August events were reported). In the type of incident (Appendix 1981 in Cultus Bay, located in addition, an apparent seasonal A). The Pacific had the third Island County. The event pattern also exists in this most complete reporting of the lasted for one day and was region. Most events were direct cause and number of fish reported as a natural event that reported between April and killed among regions. Of the occurred in a poorly designed September (Figure 30). How- states in this region, California's marina. The direct cause cited ever, the greatest numbers of reporting was the most com- was low-dissolved oxygen. fish killed were reported in plete and Washington's was the January, August, and Septem- most incomplete. Trends. The number of events ber. A seasonal pattern exists .. .... .. .. .. .. .......... .... ........ ..... . ..... .. reported from 1980 to 1989 across the Nation, with the IS 7, Il' "Ai"K-11'' hts"`:,@',@ majority of kills occurring shows a general downward trend (Figure 29). From 1980 during the summer months. Fish-kill events were reported in to 1982, at least 37 events 47 of the 64 counties in the occurred each year, with the study area (29 counties in California, 16 in Oregon, and 19 in Washington) (Figure 28). !F, iguird@@307,@ @-Numbelr of Events and Fish 'Killed by Month, 1980-1989 This region had the fourth 40 - 300 highest number of reported 272 events (293) and fish killed (4,281,100). Californiaac- 30 - 80 counted for over half of the fish- 42 60 - kill events reported in the region > 20 - with 148, followed by Washing- 40 - 10 - - MFh, Is Kill. Eve t.- ton (105); and Oregon (40). 20- L.L _d@ Washington had the highest 0 J F M A M J J A S 0,N,D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D number of fish killed in the Month Month 29 Pacific Sources and Causes In Oregon, 29 of the 40 re- ported events indicated the Figure 31. Number of Fish-Kill The Pacific region spans the direct cause of the kill. An Events by Type of widest geographic and climatic assortment of chemicals/metals Incident* range of the five regions. In (i.e., organic chemicals, inor- Accidental California, from San Francisco ganic chemicals/metals, and release Bay south, the weather is mixed chemicals) was the direct All %) cause in 13 of the 29 events. Spill generally warm and portions of others (25%) the coast are densely popu- Twenty-four of the 40 reported (20%) lated. In this area, the preva- events indicated the land-use lent direct cause of kills is low- cause of the kill. Industrial land use was the land-use cause in dissolved oxygen and pesti- 13 of the 24 events. A direct c ides which occur in the i cause was associated with a agricultural drainage canals M" land -use cause in 22 of the 40 and freshwater reservoirs in reported events. Routine the state. In contrast, Oregon Na ural release and Washington tend to have In Washington, 76 of the 105 (21%) (23%) more problems with spills and reported events indicated the routine releases (e.g., chemi- direct cause of the kill. Animal Figure 32. Number of Fish-Kill cals from industrial plants in waste was the direct cause in Events by Direct Oregon and animal wastes 21 of the 76 events. Sixty-nine Cause* from dairy farms in Washing- of the 105 reported events Chlorine ton). indicated the land-use cause of Animal (11 %) All others The top two direct causes of the kill. Agricultural land use Waste (49%) fish kills reported for the entire was the land-use cause in 26 of (12%) region were low-dissolved the 69 events. In 64 of the 105 oxygen levels and pesticides reported events, a direct cause (Figure 32). Kills related to was linked with a specific land- impacts from human activities use cause. dominate the region, such as Data tables containing the 4, 4;2 spills and routine or accidental releases occurring in agricul- number of events and fish killed Pestic e Mi by county, state, region, year, 0 1 tural, urban, and industrial direct cause, land-use cause, (13 ) Low-dissolved land-use areas (Figures 31 and incident are in Appendix A. oxygen and 33). In addition, almost a (15%) quarter of the events in the region is related to naturally Hotspots and Figure 33. Number of Fish-Kill occurring events (Figure 31). Recurring Kills Events by Land-Use Cause*- In California, 110 of the 148 King County (39 events) in reported events indicated the Washington and San Joaquin All others direct cause of the kill. Low- County (27 events) in California Impoundment %) dissolved oxygen was the reported the highest number of (17% Agriculture direct cause reported in 25 of fish-kill events in the region. (30%) the 110 events. Forty-four of The kills in King County were the 148 reported events attributed to a variety of direct indicated the land-use cause causes and land-use causes of the kill. Impoundments with no single type of event were the land-use cause in 13 being dominant. However, the 0 of the 44 events. In only 44 o most frequently cited direct f Industrial the 148 events was a land-use cause was chlorine that had Urban cause reported along with a been routinely released from an (19%) (23%) direct cause. urban land-use area (e.g., water Toes not include information from unspecified events. 30 Pacific treatment facility, construction Calitomia has two divisions site, water pipeline, and (Marine Resources and Inland chlorinated wells). In contrast, Fisheries) under the Department the majority of the kills in San of Fish and Game (DFG) that Joaquin County did not have a investigate and document fish direct cause or an associated kills. DFG's Environmental land-use cause. Eight of the 27 Services Division (the central events reported low-dissolved clearinghouse for California's oxygen levels as the direct fish-kill records) provided fish-kill cause of the event. data for this report. The Envi- ronmental Services contact Johnson Creek, located in indicated that field visits are Oregon's Clackamas and generally standard procedure Multnomah counties, was the when an event is reported. waterbody for which the most events (9) were reported in this Oregon- has two agencies that region. This creek is a tributary may be involved in the fish-kill of the Willamette River. investigation process: the Twenty-five percent of all the Department of Environmental fish killed in Oregon were killed Quality (DEQ) and the Depart- in this creek. The majority of ment of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). the events cited the direct The DEQ is specifically inter- cause as a mixture of chemi- ested in kills caused by pollu- cals from unspecified sources. tion, while the DFW responds to Whatcom Creek in Whatcom all kills. Both agencies provided County, Washington, was fish-kill data for this report. Field another waterbody for which visits are more likely to be made numerous events (5) were when a large number of fish is reported between 1981 and involved in a kill. 1989. Most of the records for these events did not contain Washington's program is information on the associated conducted by the Department of land-use cause. However, Ecology. It provided fish-kill pesticides were cited as the data for this project and reported direct cause in three of the that field visits to fish-kill sites events. are made more than 75 percent of the time. State Reporting Programs Each of the three Pacific states uses a different approach when collecting fish-kill data. The discussion below highlights which agencies in each state are involved in fish-kill reporting and when they are most likely to make an on-site investigation of a fish-kill event. Information concerning each state's program organization, investi- gative procedures, and use of data are summarized in Appen- dix B. 31 Concluding Comments Fish-kill reporting programs occur with sufficient frequency or of water-quality problems. The provide an incomplete picture involve enough fish to pose a Pamlico Estuarine Response of the Nation's fish-kill prob- significant threat to fish popula- Team (PERT), formed in North lems. Even so, they indicate tions in most areas. None of the Carolina, is an example of how that fish kills have not been a State programs surveyed fish-kill data have been used to pervasive problem in the indicated population impacts target an area experiencing Nation's estuarine and coastal resulting from fish kills. Even it ongoing water-quality problems areas. Taken together, the the estimates reported are (page 21). data generated by these State doubled to account for incom- and local programs also plete reporting, the number of Low-Dissolved Oxygen provide a basis for quantifying fish killed is still relatively small Causes Most Kills. Low- and understanding certain compared to estimates of dissolved oxygen was reported aspects of fish kills. Several existing populations in most as the direct cause of a kill in 41 conclusions regarding the areas. percent of the cases reporting uses and limitations of these cause. Although spills or acci- data are important to note. Assessing Trends is Difficult. dental releases from point Although the number of events in sources still occur, the majority Compiling State Data is coastal areas has increased over of human-induced kills is now Difficult Although all 22 coastal the past decade, the number of attributed to runoff from various states maintain some form of fish killed has decreased. The nonpoint sources. Conversa- fish-kill reporting program, data cause of these apparent trends tions with State fish-kill officials compilation is difficult. Reporting is not clear. The rise in the indicate that kills caused by responsibilities within most number of events may indicate a pollutants from point sources states are often shared by decline in water quality during (industries and wastewater several agencies. Consequently, this period, or reflect an in- treatment plants) have been data are in varied formats and creased emphasis on reporting. reduced in the last 10 tol 5 years gaps occur in some states as a Because the data are incomplete due to improvements in treat- result of lapses in State pro- and lack uniformity, conclusive ment. They also noted a de- grams or data lost during the statements at the national or crease in kills associated with transfer of program responsibili- regional level cannot be made. compounds such as DDT and ties. The analysis problem is However, a recurring seasonal other chlorinated pesticides that further compounded because no pattern appears in all states, are now used less frequently or Federal agency or national indicating most events take place are banned entirely. organization maintains a com- during the summer, from May to prehensive and up-to-date data September. base for the Nation. Hotspots Can Sometimes be Data Content Varies Among Targeted. Fish-kill data are States. There is a wide variation most frequently used by State in organization, level of activity, agencies to identify areas priorities, investigative proce- experiencing acute environmen- dures, documentation require- tal stress. Ideally, the agency ments, and reporting formats uses the data to quickly deter- among states. As a result, the mine the source of the stress data content of the information and correct the problem. How- characterizing fish kills varies ever, repeat kills may sometimes from state to state. This lack of occur before action is taken. consistency in data content The fish kills in Mattanawcook makes it difficult to reconcile Stream in Maine are a good differences in state-to-state and example of how fish-kill data regional comparisons. were used to identify and correct a discharge problem from a Little Evidence of Impacts on single source (page 11). In other Fish Populations. Fish kills in cases, fish-kill events have lead coastal waters do not appear to to a more in-depth investigation 32 References Bureau of the Census. 1988. Harllee, N.; Monitoring and Data McKinney, S.; Central Region, County and City Data Book Support Division; Office of Water Florida's Game and Freshwater (1988). U.S. Department of Enforcement and Permits; U.S. Fish Commission; Ocala, FL. Commerce, Washington, D.C. Environmental Protection (p. 22) p. 68 Agency; Washington, D.C. (see Acknowledgements and EPA Morton, R. D.; Bioenvi ron mental Environmental Law Institute. Fish-Kill Data Base, p. 2) Services Division, Duval 1988. Clean Water Deskbook. County; Jacksonville, FL. (p. Washington, D.C. p. 77 22) State Agencie Hinga, K.R., D.W. Stanley, C.J. Olsen, L. A.; Florida's Depart- Klein, D.T. Lucid, and M.J. Alabama ment of Environmental Regula- Katz (eds). 1991. The Na- tion; Tallahassee, FL. (p. 22) tional Estuarine Eutrophication Williford, E. J.; Alabama's Project: Workshop Proceed- Department of Environmental Romeis, G.; South District ings. Rockville, MD: National Management; Montgomery, AL. Office, Florida's Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric (p. 27) Environmental Regulation; Fort Administration and the Univer- Myer, FL. (p. 22) sity of Rhode Island Graduate California School of Oceanography. 41 Ross, Landon; Florida's Depart- PP. Fransen, H.R.; Environmental ment of Environmental Regula- Services Division; California's tion; Tallahassee, FL. (see Hot- NOAA. 1987. National Department of Fish and Game; Spots and Recurring Kills, p. 22) Estuarine Inventory: Data Rancho Cordova, CA. (p. 31) Atlas, Volume 2: Land-Use Walton, A. S.; South District Characteristics. Rockville, MD: Connecticut Office; Florida's Department of National Oceanic and Atmo- Environmental Regulation; spheric Administration. 40 pp. Jacobson, R. A.; Water Man- Punta Gorda, FL. (p. 22) agement and Fisheries Division; NOAA. 1990. Estuaries of the Connecticut's Department of Young, N.; Northwest Region, United States: Vital Statistics Environmental Protection; Florida's Game and Freshwater of a National Resource Base. Hartford, CT. (p. 16) Fish Commission; DeFuniak Strategic Assessment Branch, Springs, FL. (p. 22) Rockville, MD. 79 pp. Delaware Pait, A. S., A. DeSouza, and Georaia D.R.G. Farrow. 1991. Agricul- Miller, R. W.; Division of Fish tural Pesticides in Coastal and Wildlife; Delaware's Depart- Coomer, C. Jr.; Fisheries Areas: A National Summary. ment of Natural Resources and Section; Game and Fish Divi- Rockville, MD: National Environmental Control; Dover, sion; Georgia's Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric DE. (p. 16) Natural Resources; Atlanta, GA. Administration. (In prepara- (p. 22) tion) Florida Shipman, S.; Coastal Re- Personal sources Division; Georgia's Communications Champeau, T.; South Region, Department of Natural Re- Florida's Game and Freshwater sources; Brunswick, GA. (p. 22) FedeLal Agencies Fish Commission; Lakeland, FL. (p. 22) Louisiana Farrow, D.; Strategic Environ- Krummrich, J.; Northeast Albritton, R.; Louisiana's mental Assessments Division, Region, Florida's Game and Department of Environmental National Oceanic and Atmo- Freshwater Fish Commission; Quality; Baton Rogue, LA. (p. spheric Administration, Lake City, FL. (p. 22) 27) Rockville, MD (p. 1, para 7) 34 References Maine Winkel, R.; Bureau of Law Kinney, R.; Waste Assessment Enforcement; Fish, Game, and and Emergency Response; Courtmanch, D.; Maine's Depart- Wildlife Division; New Jersey's Bureau of Solid and Hazardous ment of Environmental Protection; Department of Environmental Waste Management; South Augusta, ME. (see Maine, and Protection; Trenton, NJ. (p. Carolina's Department of Health Hot-Spots and Recurring Kills, p. 16) and Environmental Control; 11) Columbia, SC. (p. 21) New Yor Maryland Texas Spodaryk, J.; New York's Poukish, C.; Water Quality Department of Environmental Palafox, D.; Resource Protection Monitoring Division; Maryland's Conservation; Gloversville, NY. Division; Texas Parks and Department of the Environment; (p. 16) Wildlife Department; Austin, TX. Annapolis, MD. (p. 16) (p- 27) Massachusetts North Carolina Palma, V.; Resource Protection Division; Texas Parks and Fiske, J. D.; Division of Marine Wiggins, K.; Division of Envi- Wildlife Department; Austin, TX. Fisheries; Massachusetts' Depart- ronmental Management; North (p. 27) ment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Carolina's Department of Environmental Law Enforcement; Environment, Health, and ViML[i@a Sandwich, MA. (p. 11) Natural Resources; Raleigh, NC. (p. 21) Sykes, M.A.; Pollution Remedia- Keller, R.; Division of Fisheries tion Program; Virginia Water and Wildlife; Massachusetts' Oreaon Control Board; Richmond, VA. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, (p- 16) and Environmental Law Enforce- Robart, G.; Oregon's Depart- ment; Westboro, MA. (p. 11) ment of Fish and Wildlife; Washinaton Portland, OR. (p. 31) Mississippi LeVander, L.; Northwest Re- Pennsylvania gional Office; Washington's Rodgers, S.; Bureau of Pollution Department of Ecology; Control; Mississippi's Department Manhart, E. W.; Bureau of Law Redmond, WA. (p. 31) of Environmental Quality; Pearl, Enforcement; Pennsylvania's MS. (p. 27) Fish Commission; Harrisburg, Kittle, L.; Central Office; Wash- PA. (p. 16) ington's Department of Ecology; New Hampshire Olympia, WA. (p. 31) Rhode Island Ingham, W. Jr.; New Hampshire's Department of Fish and Game; Richardson, R. E.; Water Durham, NH. (p. 11) Resources Division; Rhode Island's Department of Envi- Nelson, J.; New Hampshire's ronmental Management; Department of Fish and Game; Providence, RI. (p. 15) Durham, NH. (p. 11) South Carolina New Jersey Adams, C.; Bureau of Solid Murza, S.; Bureau of Law En- and Hazardous Waste Man- forcement; Fish, Game, and agement; South Carolina's Wildlife Division; New Jersey's Department of Health and Department of Environmental Environmental Control; Colum- Protection; Trenton, NJ. (p. 16) bia, SC. (p. 21) 35 Appendix A -North Atlantic 2 Maine 11 13 10 4 15 5 19 9 6 14 1 8 7 - 20 New 18 3 Hampshire 17 16 12 22 24 23 11 @, Coastal County Number 21 26 27 30 31 28 29 Massachusetts 25 1 36 North Atlantic Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported of kill was reported more fish were killed Maine 1 Androscoggin 3 80 100 100 0 2 Aroostook NO NO NO NO NO 3 Cumberland 1 2 100 100 0 4 Franklin 1 1 100 100 0 5 Hancock NO NO NO NO NO 6 Kennebec NO NO NO NO NO 7 Knox NO NO NO NO NO 8 Lincoln NO NO NO NO NO 9 Oxford 2 1,005 50 100 0 10 Penobscot 13 31 92 100 0 11 Piscataquis NO NO NO NO NO 12 Sagadahoc 3 460 100 100 0 13 Somerset 2 4 100 100 0 14 Waldo NO NO NO NO NO 15 Washington 2 45 100 100 0 16 York 1 NR 0 100 0 Subtotal 28 1,628 90 100 0 New Hampshire 17 Belknap 1 1 100 100 0 18 Carroll NO ND NO NO NO 19 Coos NO NO NO NO NO 20 Grafton NO NO NO NO NO 21 Hillsborough NO NO NO NO NO 22 Merrimack NO NO NO NO NO 23 Rockingham NO NO NO NO NO 24 Strafford NO NO NO NO NO Subtotal I 1 100 100 0 Massachusetts 25 Barnstable 10 39,207 90 70 1 26 Essex NO NO NO NO NO 27 Middlesex 2 4 100 50 0 28 Norfolk 3 23 100 67 0 29 Plymouth 3 34 100 67 0 30 Suffolk NO NO NO NO NO 31 Worcester 1 6 100 0 0 Subtotal 19 39,273 95 51 1 Total 48 40,903 92 84 1 National Total 3,654 4,071,630 84 79 86 Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NR, number of fish killed not reported;ND,no data was received. 37 Appendix A s,, Y Yi@or; igoo-1989, Maine New Massachusetts a Total Hampshire Year e k e k e k e k 1980 2 1,030 1 1 2 19 5 1,050 1981 1 20 0 0 4 39 5 59 1982 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 6 1983 6 76 0 0 1 39,119 7 39,195 1984 2 310 0 0 1 3 3 313 1985 3 107 0 0 5 82 8 189 1986 3 12 0 0 0 0 3 12 1987 2 2 0 0 2 2 4 4 1988 6 62 0 0 2 2 8 64 1989 1 3 0 0 2 8 3 10 Total 28 1,628 1 1 19 39,273 48 40,903 fish;-Kffl,:Even@ Dii,-,,-,,C#q1se, 1980-1989 Maine New Massachusetts' Total Hampshire Direct Cause e k e k e k e k Low D. 0. 5 488 0 0 4 39,126 9- 39,614 Temperature 1 2 0 0 1 3 2 5 Sedimentation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eutrophication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disease 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Stranding 2 6 0 0 1 3 3 9 Storm Event I NR 0 0 0 0 .1, NR Wastewater 9 1,019 0 0 3 17 12 1,036 Animal Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 4 6 0 0 0 0 4 6 Organic Chemicals 2 21 0 0 0 0 2 21 Inorganic Chemicals/Metals 2 70 1 1 0 0 3 71 Mixed Chemicals 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 7 Pesticides 0 0 0 0 2 45 2 45 Nutrients 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salinity Changes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Petroleum 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 10 Chlorine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Tide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Predation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 0 0 0 0 7 79 7 79 Total 28 1,628 1 1 19 39,273 48 40,903 Abbreviations: e number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported; Low D.O., low-dissolved oxygen. a. Not all counties in stale included; state is split between regions. 38 'North Atlantic .......... .... . ............ 19M1989140111FIR . ......... a Maine New Massachuseffsa Total Hampshire Land-Use Cause e k e k e k e k Agriculture 1 NR 0 0 6 79 7 79 Industrial 19 1,147 0 0 0 0 19 1,147 Urban 1 5 1 1 1 3 3 9 Impoundment 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Water-Related 3 460 0 0 4 6 7 468 Silviculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wildland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Military 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 3 15 0 0 8 39,183 11 39,198 Total 28 1,628 1 1 19 39,273 48 40,903 W, -yji - Fish-TKIIFIEV'ifit "'lliholdenli@ i 980-49'89 .. . ....... ;W SOY Maine New Massachusettsa Total Hampshire Incident e k e k e k e k Runoff 1 NR 1 1 1 30 3 31 Routine Release 9 1,021 0 0 2 4 11 1,025 Accidental Release 1 NR 0 0 0 0 1 NR Spill 3 32 0 0 1 13 4 45 Spraying 0 0 0 0 1 15 1 is Natural 3 460 0 0 5 39,127 8 39,587 Drawdown 3 9 0 0 1 3 4 12 Dredging or Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 8 107 0 0 8 82 16 189 Total 28 1,628 1 1 19 39,273 48 40,903 Abbreviations: e number of events; Arnumber of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. 39 Appendix A- Middle Atlantic Northern New York Massachusetts 3 37 22 33 26 2@ 2 6 7 39 40 25 16 15 20 21 12 3 30 31 18 17 9 13 ' 60 535 41 14 94 Pennsylvania 55 @B @ 28 38 sland 67 6 Connecticut 51 59 53 23 66 625 2932 68 65 63 44 56 345027 70 4 Maryland 58 42 New Jersey 7 6@ 4 71 Delaware Pennsylvania New Southern Jersey 276 Maryland 673107 71 111 74215 36 ;56 603 14 Delaware 72 6384 M45 16 19 24 452 29 65 17 20 7340 44 28 32 57452551 23 26 531 30 4866 53 58 59 80 573 Virginia 55 33 74 42 a' 71 Coastal County Number 7@ 85 82"77 40 Middle Atlantic . "R ..... ..... 4980-1989 ITT '11kh"'AIRM-, iSh4'k,,'fi'f' @eAsil :bd ---------- % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported of kill was reported more fish were killed Middle Atlantic (Northern) Massachusetts 1 Barnstable Data found in the North Atlantic region. - 2 Berkshire 1 <1 100 0 0 3 Bristol 5 232 100 60 0 4 Dukes NO NO NO NO NO 5 Hampden 2 126 100 100 0 * Nantucket NO NO NO NO NO 6 Norfolk Data found in the North Atlantic region. 7 Plymouth Data found in the North Atlantic region. 8 Worcester Data found in the North Atlantic region. Subtotal 8 358 100 63 0 Rhode Island 9 Bristol NO NO NO NO NO 10 Kent 6 46 100 83 0 11 Newport 2 22 50 50 0 12 Providence 7 17 71 71 0 13 Washington 3 52 100 67 0 Subtotal is 136 83 72 0 Connecticut 14 Fairfield 8 1,337 88 75 0 15 Hartford 11 23 82 82 0 16 Litchfield 4 27 100 75 0 17 Middlesex 8 161 100 63 0 18 New Haven 9 1,100 100 78 0 19 New London 11 143 91 73 0 20 Tolland 2 2 100 100 0 21 Windham 2 1 100 100 0 Subtotal 55 2,794 93 76 0 New York 22 Albany 8 549 75 63 0 23 Bronx 2 20,000 100 100 2 24 Columbia 11 229 73 91 0 25 Dutchess 11 11 100 91 0 26 Greene 11 45 73 73 0 27 Kings NO NO NO NO NO 28 Nassau 1 NR 0 100 0 29 New York NO NO NO NO NO 30 Orange 28 208 93 75 0 31 Putnam 11 59 100 82 0 32 Queens 1 20 100 100 0 33 Rensselaer 17 11,635 76 65 1 34 Richmond 2 100 100 100 0 35 Rockland 9 30 78 67 0 36 Schenectady NO NO NO NO NO Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NR, number of fish killed not reported; NO, no data was received. Not shown on map. 41 Appendix A Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported of kill was reported more fish were killed Middle Atlantic (Northern) New York (cont.) 37 Schoharie 1 <1 100 100 0 38 Suffolk 7 38 100 57 0 39 Sullivan NO NO NO NO NO 40 Ulster 14 136 100 79 0 41 Westchester 17 82 94 82 0 Subtotal 151 33,142 88 77 3 New Jersey 42 Atlantic NO NO NO NO NO 43 Bergen 10 NR 0 80 0 44 Burlington 8 NR 0 75 0 45 Camden 3 NR 0 67 0 46 Cape May NO NO NO NO NO 47 Cumberland 1 NR 0 0 0 48 Essex 3 <1 33 33 0 49 Gloucester 9 NR 0 67 0 50 Hudson 2 NR 0 0 0 51 Hunterdon 3 NR 0 67 0 52 Mercer 6 2 17 33 0 53 Middlesex 11 101 9 73 0 54 Monmouth 13 NR 0 46 0 55 Morris 11 <1 9 55 0 56 Ocean 4 NR 0 50 0 57 Passaic 6 NR 0 50 0 58 Salem 5 NR 0 60 0 59 Somerset 9 NR 0 44 0 60 Sussex 3 NR 0 0 0 61 Union 5 NR 0 100 0 Subtotal 112 103 4 57 0 Pennsylvania 62 Bucks 3 22 100 67 0 63 Chester 8 144 100 75 0 64 Delaware 3 36 67 67 0 65 Lancaster NO NO NO NO NO 66 Montgomery 1 <1 100 0 0 67 Philadelphia 1 5 100 0 0 68 York NO NO NO NO NO Subtotal 16 207 94 63 0 Delaware 69 Kent 46 236,781 98 53 3 70 New Castle 38 396 100 54 0 71 Sussex 36 43,056 97 70 3 Subtotal 120 280,233 98 58 6 Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NRnumber of fish killed not reported; ND,no data was received. 42 Middle Atlantic Fish-Kill Events by County,1980-1989 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause where I million or State/County Events (X100) was reported of kill was reported more fish were killed Middle Atlantic (Southern) Maryland 2 Anne Arundel 182 359,847 66 82 8 3 Baltimore 47 14,340 91 60 1 4 Calvert 17 27,715 88 76 1 5 Caroline 3 11 100 33 0 6 Carroll 7 30 100 71 0 7 Cecil is 231 67 33 0 8 Charles 14 10,061 86 36 1 9 Dorchester 15 18,852 73 93 1 10 Harford 21 1,382 76 90 0 11 Howard 4 6 75 75 0 12 Kent 7 1,522 71 57 0 13 Montgomery 4 7 75 50 0 14 Prince George's 9 222 67 33 0 15 Queen Anne's 14 ill 71 64 0 16 St. Mary's 28 23,727 86 82 2 17 Somerset 7 39 86 43 0 18 Talbot 14 17,674 93 86 1 19 Wicomico 13 203,252 85 77 5 20 Worcester 1 100 100 100 0 21 Baltimore City 23 179 65 78 0 22 District of Columbia 7 5,520 71 71 0 Subtotal 455 684,828 75 73 20 Virginia 23 Accomack 2 2 50 0 0 24 Albemarle NO NO NO NO NO 25 Amelia NO NO NO NO NO 26 Appomattox NR 0 0 0 27 Arlington 3 15 100 67 0 28 Buckingham NO NO NO NO NO 29 Caroline 2 428 100 100 0 30 Charles City 1 1 100 0 0 31 Chesterfield 5 42 100 60 0 32 Cumberland NO NO NO NO NO 33 Dinwiddie NO NO NO NO NO 34 Essex NO NO NO NO NO 35 Fairfax 8 48 100 88 0 36 Fauquier 2 <1 50 50 0 37 Fluvanna 1 <1 100 100 0 38 Gloucester 1 1,000 100 0 0 39 Goochland NO NO NO NO NO 40 Hanover NO NO NO NO NO 41 Henrico 5 24 100 100 0 42 Isle of Wight NO NO NO NO NO 43 James City 2 60 100 100 0 44 King and Queen NO NO NO NO NO Abbreviations: NR, number of fish killed not reported; NO, no data was received. 43 Appendix A Fish-Will Events by County,1980-1989 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported of kill was reported more fish were killed Middle Atlantic (Southern) Virginia (cont.) 45 King George NO NO NO NO ND 46 King William NO NO NO NO NO 47 Lancaster 3 126,400 67 0 2 48 Loudoun 1 2 100 100 0 49 Louisa 1 1 100 100 0 50 Mathews 1 4 100 0 0 51 Middlesex 2 20 50 0 0 52 New Kent 1 <1 100 0 0 53 Northampton NO NO ND NO ND 54 Northumberland 4 11,052 100 50 1 55 Nottoway ND NO NO NO ND 56 Orange ND NO NO NO ND 57 Powhatan ND ND NO NO NO 58 Prince Edward NO NO NO NO NO 59 Prince George 3 20 100 67 0 60 Prince William 4 46 100 100 0 61 Richmond 2 23 100 50 0 62 Spotsylvania NO NO ND NO NO 63 Stafford 2 1 100 50 0 64 Surry NO NO NO NO NO 65 Westmoreland 4 70 75 25 0 66 York 3 10,015 100 33 1 Virginia (Independent Cities) 67 Alexandria 3 21 100 33 0 68 Chesapeake Data found in the South Atlantic region. 69 Colonial Heights 1 1,503 100 100 0 70 Fairfax ND NO NO NO NO 71 Falls Church NO NO NO NO NO 72 Fredericksburg ND ND NO NO NO 73 Hampton 2 22 100 50 0 74 Hopewell 8 201 88 75 0 75 Manassas NO NO NO NO NO 76 Manassas Park NO NO ND ND NO 77 Newport News 2 22 100 50 0 78 Norfolk 6 35 100 83 0 79 Petersburg 2 <1 50 50 0 80 Poquoson 2 503 100 50 0 81 Portsmouth 5 8 80 80 0 82 Richmond 3 NR 0 67 0 * Southampton Data found in the South Atlantic region. 83 Suffolk Data found in the South Atlantic region. 84 Virginia Beach Data found in the South Atlantic region. 85 Williamsburg NO ND NO NO NO Subtotal 98 151,591 88 61 4 Middle AtlanticTotal 1,033 1,153,392 65 69 33 National Total 3,654 4,071,630 84 79 86 Abbreviations: NR, number of fish killed not reported; ND, no data was received. Not shown on map. 44 Fish@Kill EVeh -",Year.1980-1989@ Massa- Rhode Connect- New York New Pennsyl- Delaware Maryland b Virginia a Total chusetts Island icut Jersey vania Year e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e, k 1980 1 1 1 NR 5 19 4 1,555 5 NR 6 54 16 5,587 20 250,242 23 2,084 81 259,542 1981 0 0 2 2 5 9 3 10,000 7 2 4 132 12 10,725 22 142,184 20 117,564 75 280,617 1982 0 0 1 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 11 28 106 8 20,019 46 20,145 1983 1 190 0 0 4 12 12 149 0 0 0 0 20 37,556 0 0 5 4 42 37,912 1984 0 0 2 40 6 37 16 203 0 0 0 0 6 16 14 13,743 7 10,005 51 24,043 1985 0 0 0 0 9 162 24 222 0 0 1 5 11 5,053 53 35,573 4 87 102 41,101 1986 1 30 1 NR 7 1,028 22 131 10 101 0 0 13 70 103 216,255 12 67 169 217,682 1987 2 10 1 20 11 1,304 19 71 28 NR 2 12 15 1,333 77 9,505 6 1,550 161 13,806 1988 2 2 3 15 5 217 21 20,438 36 1 0 0 16 218,871 86 13,260 8 86 177 252,889 1989 1 125 7 57 1 4 30 372 26 <1 0 0 7 1,012 52 3,961 5 125 129 5,656 Total 8 358 18 136 55 2,794 151 33,142 112 103 16 207 120 280,233 455 684,828 98 151,591 19033 1,153,392 Abbreviations: P, number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. b. Maryland totals include the District of Columbia. 4@1 - ------- - -- Fish-Kill Even'ts Dire'dt Caui-,@_' Massa- Rhode Connect- New York New Pennsyl- Delaware Maryland b Virginia a Total chusetts' Island icurt Jersey vania Direct Cause e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e k Low D. 0. 2 12 9 69 9 2,441 18 20,110 8 1 0 0 36 278,045 200 252,165 12 50 294 552,892 Temperature 0 0 0 0 2 9 10 77 1 NR 0 0 9 350 5 246,953 11 212 38 247,601 Sedimentation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 NR 0 0 1 1,001 3 11 0 0 7 1,011 Eulrophication 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 4 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10,000 7 10,003 Disease 0 0 0 0 4 91 15 24 3 NR 0 0 2 16 63 4500 0 0 87 4,631 Stranding 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 129 0 0 0 0 1 5 11 155,758 3 <1 19 155,892 Storm Event 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6,135 1 10 12 6,315 Wastewater 1 <1 1 2 2 1 10 46 8 NR 3 14 4 24 14 5,641 3 11,003 46 16,732 Animal Waste 0 0 0 0 1 <1 4 287 1 NR 0 0 0 0 5 1,016 0 0 11 1,303 pH 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 36 2 NR 0 0 1 <1 1 10 2 2 9 48 Organic Chemicals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 101 0 0 1 <1 1 86 2 40 a 227 Inorganic Chemicals/Metals 0 0 2 3 8 65 11 167 3 NR 0 0 4 3 4 211 5 11 37 461 Mixed Chemicals 2 126 0 0 6 11 0 0 4 NR 1 12 3 201 2 41 1 1 19 392 Pesticides 0 0 0 0 3 2 8 75 9 NR 3 122 4 59 3 <1 4 1,522 34 1,779 Nutrients 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 Salinity Changes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Petroleum 0 0 0 0 2 6 12 135 8 NR 1 1 4 14 1 10 7 501 35 668 Chlorine 0 0 0 0 4 4 16 139 6 NR 2 26 2 1 9 211 6 16 45 396 Red Tide 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 3 24 Predation 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NR 1 6 3 6 Unspecified 3 220 5 60 13 159 35 11,740 48 2 6 31 48 516 122 12,081 38 128,197 318 153,007 Total 8 358 18 136 55 2,794 151 33,142 112 103 16 207 120 280,233 455 684,828 98 151,591 1,033 1,153,392 Abbreviations: e number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported; Low D.O., low-dissolved oxygen. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. b. Maryland totals include the District of Columbia. 90-92-1, Fis @-Klil E"s bt 0 910- -ause, ppsel. j Massa- Rhode Connect- New York New Pennsyl- Delaware Maryland b Virginia a Total chusettSa Island !cut Jersey vania Land-Use Cause e k e k e Ar e k e k a k e k e k a k e k Agriculture 0 0 0 0 3 7 5 457 1 0 3 122 3 3 5 19 2 4 22 612 Industrial 2 126 1 2 6 41 17 302 11 '101 4 24 7 241 5 202 17 11,245 70 12,284 Urban 1 1 2 3 2 1 26 160 16 0 6 45 10 69 38 11,346 10 29 'I'll 11,653 Impoundment 0 0 0 0 1 4 33 265 2 0 0 0 9 211 13 2,235 4 1,544 62 4,258 Water-Related 0 0 2 5 5 92 11 10,010 3 0 0 0 4 1,211 188 523,498 14 10,056 227 544,872 Silviculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wildland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Military 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 18 4 20 Unspecified 5 232 13 126 38 2,649 58 21,945 79 3 3 16 87 278,498 206 147,528 48 128,696 537 579,694 Total 8 358 18 136 55 2,794 151 33,142 112 103 16 207 120 280,233 455 684,828 98 151,591 1,033 1,153,392 Abbreviations: e, number of events; knumber of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. b. Maryland totals include the District of Columbia. 91�0 . . . . . . ... ........ ...... bj- b I a Total Masse- Rhode Connect- New York New Pennsyl- Delaware Maryland Virgin a chuseftsr Island icut Jersey vania Incident e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e k e k Runoff 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 <1 4 NP 0 0 2 201 7 58 2 12 19 273 Routine Release I <1 2 4 1 <1 6 35 2 NR 3 12 7 36 14 5,713 13 11,175 49 16,975 Accidental Release 0 0 0 0 1 NR 7 283 2 NR 1 29 6 25 15 6,558 4 44 36 6,938 Spill 0 0 0 0 5 45 12 68 3 NR 0 0 2 10 8 215 7 1,515 37 1,854 Spraying 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 124 1 NR 1 19 1 54 2 12 1 15 12 224 Natural 0 0 3 6 6 104 39 10,326 8 NR 0 0 26 366 199 525,351 16 10,096 297 546,249 Drawdown 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 131 0 0 0 0 2 37 2 216 1 NR 10 384 Dredging or Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,001 1 <1 0 0 2 1,001 Unspecified 7 358 13 126 39 2,642 75 22,175 92 103 11 147 73 278,504 207 146,705 54 128,734 571 579,495 Total 8 358 18 136 55 2,794 151 33,142 112 103 16 207 120 280,233 455 684,828 98 151,591 1,033 1,153,392 Abbreviations: e, number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. b. Maryland totals include the District of Columbia Appendix A - South Atlantic Virginia 3 @ 2 32 20 16 22 24 10 @2 North Carolina 30 19 7 35 47 38 296 45 43 17 23 26 46 21 25 28 14 44539 15 41 18 27 34 South 65 53 68 408 36 33 Carolina 565 56 13 64659 6 9 '31 70 2 54 71 Georgia 49 69 51 60 48 89 95655 52 85 9 78 84 63 50 5 97 967a as 72990 8@ a a3 7 99 92 7 94 98686 82 Bo 79 116 108 106 1 125 105 102 12 100 121 C)q 113 126 112 124 118 10 1'9 Florida 117 123 114 110 120 104 115 107 Coastal County Number 'C@ 50 South Atlantic .,,Tish-KiII;Eventt by 00unty, 1980-1989 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported of kill was reported more fish were killed Virgina I Southampton NO NO NO NO NO 2 Chesapeake 7 130 100 57 0 3 Suffolk NO NO NO NO NO 4 Virginia Beach 24 25,369 96 71 1 Subtotal 31 25,499 97 68 1 North Carolina 5 Anson NO NO NO NO NO 6 Beaufort 55 103,930 80 76 6 7 Bertie NO NO NO NO NO 8 B(aden 1 2 100 100 0 9 Brunswick 1 2 100 0 0 10 Camden NO NO NO NO NO 11 Carteret 5 38 60 20 0 12 Chowan 1 1 100 100 0 13 Columbus 4 8 100 100 0 14 Craven 15 1,216 60 80 0 15 Cumberland 2 40 100 100 0 16 Currituck NO NO NO NO NO 17 Dare 2 30,001 100 100 1 18 Duplin 4 3 75 50 0 19 Edgecombe 3 2 100 0 0 20 Gates NO NO NO NO NO 21 Greene NO NO NO NO NO 22 Halifax 1 15 100 0 0 23 Harnett 2 1 50 100 0 24 Hertford NO NO NO NO NO 25 Hyde 6 60,058 100 50 2 26 Johnston NO NO NO NO NO 27 Jones 1 <1 100 0 0 28 Lenoir 3 31 100 67 0 29 Martin 1 2 100 0 0 30 Nash NO NO NO NO NO 31 New Hanover 6 237 100 67 0 32 Northampton NO NO NO NO NO 33 Onslow 7 606 86 86 0 34 Pamlico 8 60,070 75 100 2 35 Pasquotank 4 23 100 25 0 36 Pender 1 10 100 100 0 37 Perquimans NO NO NO NO NO 38 Pitt 3 22 100 100 0 39 Richmond NO NO NO NO NO 40 Robeson 3 4 100 67 0 41 Sampson 6 8 100 83 0 42 Scotland 1 <1 100 0 0 43 Tyrrell I NR 0 0 0 44 Union NO NO NO NO NO * Wake NO NO NO NO NO 45 Washington 4 37 75 75 0 Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NR, number of fish killed not reported;ND, no data was received. Not shown on map. 51 Appendix A -ll@w@@--;,@Inp- y@! n ..... .. ... % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause where 1 million or State/County Events (X1 00) was reported of kill was reported more fish were killed North Carolina (cont.) 46 Wayne 1 30 0 100 0 47 Wilson 1 NR 0 100 0 Subtotal 153 256,397 82 71 11 South Carolina 48 Allendale NO NO NO NO NO 49 Bamberg NO NO NO NO NO 50 Beaufort 73 343 96 70 0 51 Berkeley 11 72 91 64 0 52 Charleston 53 332 83 83 0 53 Chesterfield 2 <1 50 0 0 54 Clarendon NO NO NO NO NO 55 Colleton 5 165 so 100 0 56 Darlington 7 35 100 57 0 57 Dillon 1 2 100 100 0 58 Dorchester 9 24 89 67 0 59 Florence 8 192 88 88 0 60 Georgetown 1 100 100 100 0 61 Hampton 1 12 100 100 0 62 Horry 9 68 100 78 0 63 Jasper 2 21 100 50 0 64 Kershaw NO NO NO NO NO 65 Lancaster NO NO NO NO NO 66 Lee NO NO NO NO NO 67 Marion 3 12 100 33 0 68 Marlboro 2 11 100 50 0 69 Orangeburg 1 <1 100 0 0 70 Sumter 3 1 67 33 0 71 Williamsburg NO NO NO NO NO Subtotal 191 1,393 91 72 0 Georgia 72 Appling NO NO NO NO NO 73 Atkinson NO NO NO NO NO 74 Bacon 2 14 100 0 0 75 Ben Hill NO NO NO NO NO 76 Brantley 1 1 100 100 0 77 Bryan NO NO NO NO NO *Brooks Data found in the Guff of Mexico Region. 78 Bulloch 1 1 100 100 0 79 Camden 2 16 100 0 0 80 Charlton NO NO NO NO NO 81 Chatham 15 26,949 100 0 1 82 Clinch NO NO NO NO NO 83 Coffee 2 4 100 100 0 *Decatur Data found in the Gulf of Mexico Region. 84 Effingham NO NO NO NO NO Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NR, number ot fish killed not reported;ND, no data was received. * Not shown on map. 52 South Atlantic "itsby County,,1980 19 9@ yen % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported of kill was reported more fish were killed Georgia (cont.) 85 Emanuel NO NO NO NO NO Evans NO NO NO NO NO 86 Glynn 3 82 100 0 0 * Grady Data found in the Gulf of Mexico Region. 87 Irwin NO NO NO NO NO 88 Jeff Davis NO NO NO NO NO 89 Jenkins NO NO NO NO NO 90 Liberty NO NO NO NO NO 91 Long NO NO NO NO NO 92 McIntosh NO NO NO NO NO 93 Montgomery NO NO NO NO NO 94 Pierce 1 43 100 0 0 95 Screven NO NO NO NO NO 96 Tattnall NO NO NO NO NO * Thomas Data found in the Gulf of Mexico Region. 97 Toombs NO NO NO NO NO 98 Ware 5 7 100 100 0 99 Wayne 1 73 100 0 0 Subtotal 33 27,192 100 100 1 Florida 100 Alachua 1 <1 100 100 0 101 Baker 2 2 100 100 0 102 Bradford NO NO NO NO NO 103 Brevard 39 7,365 100 85 0 104 Broward 277 1,288 100 93 0 105 Clay 8 41 100 75 0 106 Columbia Data found in the Gulf of Mexico Region. 107 Dade 87 364 100 80 0 108 Duval 56 15,273 82 70 1 109 Flager 1 30 100 100 0 110 Hendry Data found in the Gulf of Mexico Region. 111 Indian River 14 58 100 79 0 112 Lake 10 966 100 70 0 113 Marion 14 167,850 93 50 4 114 Martin 24 90 96 92 0 115 Monroe Data found in the Gulf of Mexico Region. 116 Nassau NO NO NO NO NO 117 Okeechobee 9 200 100 100 0 118 Orange 18 360,234 89 72 2 119 Osceola NO NO NO NO NO 120 Palm Beach 383 1,748 100 96 0 121 Putnam NO NO NO NO NO 122 St. Johns 6 4,800 100 100 0 123 St. Lucie 61 290 100 90 0 124 Seminole 12 79,614 100 58 1 125 Union 2 1 50 100 0 126 Volusia 18 2,220 94 83 0 Subtotal 1,042 642,432 98 89 8 Total 1,450 952,913 96 84 21 National Total 3,654 4,071,630 84 79 86 Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NR, number of fish killed not reporled;ND, no data was received. Not shown on map. 53 Appendix A Fish-Kill Events by Year, 1980-1989 Virginia a North South Georgia a Florida a Total Carolina Carolina Year e k e k e k e k e k e k 1980 7 20,235 6 22 29 271 4 122 11 96 57 20,745 1981 10 5,109 19 100,130 22 124 3 75 79 442,039 133 547,478 1982 2 14 25 1,218 23 153 0 0 51 6,132 101 7,517 1983 4 7 11 30,538 15 360 7 21 81 2,666 118 33,592 1984 1 5 14 390 16 38 0 0 68 5,200 99 5,634 1985 0 0 26 113,492 24 73 7 208 94 168,378 151 282,151 1986 2 120 10 98 34 270 5 574 192 885 243 1,948 1987 4 6 21 10,170 16 70 2 5 120 510 163 10,760 1988 1 3 15 207 12 33 2 2 137 15,501 167 15,746 1989 0 0 6 132 0 0 3 26,186 209 1,024 218 27,342 Total 31 25,499 153 256,397 191 1,393 33 27,192 1,042 642,432 1,450 952,913 Fish-Kill Events by Direct Cause, 1980-1989 Virginia North South Georgia Florida Total Carolina Carolina Direct Cause e k e k e k e k e k e k Low D. 0. 8 360 38 61,203 60 726 5 69 728 159,783 839 222,141 Temperature 4 20,008 4 60,013 11 77 1 26,106 19 1,172 39 107,376 Sedimentation 1 <1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 Eutrophication 3 14 12 40,196 15 135 0 0 99 533 129 40,878 Disease 0 0 8 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 131 Stranding 1 1 2 10 2 25 3 12 7 2,543 15 2,591 Storm Event 0 0 1 200 1 1 3 519 9 2,726 14 3,446 Wastewater 0 0 3 5 8 26 6 163 17 13,718 34 13,912 Animal Waste 1 12 4 42 0 0 2 45 1 10 8 109 pH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 Organic Chemicals 0 0 0 0 1 10 2 81 1 200 4 291 Inorganic Chemicals/Metals 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 3 9 Mixed Chemicals 0 0 1 20 2 8 2 6 7 300,015 12 300,049 Pesticides 0 0 9 47 29 216 0 0 18 15,224 56 15,488 Nutrient 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 15 61,383 16 61,386 Salinity Changes 2 5 22 94,286 3 31 0 0 4 81 31 94,403 Petroleum 0 0 2 <1 2 2 3 82 1 <1 8 85 Chlorine 0 0 0 0 1 <1 0 0 0 0 1 <1 Red Tide 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 <1 2 3 Predation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 10 5,096 45 241 53 133 6 109 113 85,037 227 90,615 Total 31 25,499 153 256,397 191 1,393 33 27,192 1,042 642,432 1,450 952,913 Abbreviations: e number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported; Low D.O., low-dissolved oxygen. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. 54 South Atlantic Fish-Kill Events by Land-Use Cause, 1980-1989 Virginia North South Georgia 8 Florida a Total Carolina Carolina Land-Use Cause e k e k e k e k e k e k Agriculture 2 32 10 83 2 20 5 122 26 11,787 45 12,044 Industrial 0 0 4 5 2 171 2 81 19 15,051 27 15,308 Urban 1 <1 1 3 12 59 11 689 158 362,108 183 362,860 Impoundment 4 20,014 21 30,666 3 25 1 1 15 2,563 44 53,269 Water-Related 8 47 42 144,828 0 0 3 26,114 21 2,035 74 173,025 Silviculture 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 Wildland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Military 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 16 5,406 74 80,792 172 1,117 11 185 803 248,887 1,076 336,387 Total 31 25,499 153 256,397 191 1,393 33 27,192 1,042 642,432 1,450 952,913 .... ...... 'Xill Events by'Incident Tish!! Virginia a North South Georgia' Florida Total Carolina Carolina Incident e k e k e k e k e k e k Runoff 1 <1 6 55 3 23 3 519 151 375,989 164 376,586 Routine Release 0 0 1 1 1 21 6 66 19 9,006 27 9,094 Accidental Release 0 0 5 16 3 180 2 93 8 33 is 322 Spill 0 0 4 3 7 7 2 82 3 8 16 100 Spraying 0 0 2 2 3 28 0 0 3 51 8 81 Natural 12 20,061 65 195,517 3 1 3 26,114 32 3,751 115 245,445 Drawdown 0 0 1 <1 2 25 1 3 3 2,540 7 2,569 Dredging or Drilling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 <1 I <1 Unspecified 18 5,438 69 60,802 169 1,107 16 314 822 251,054 1,094 318,715 Total 31 25,499 153 256,397 191 1,393 33 27,192 1,042 642,432 1,450 952,913 Abbreviations: a number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. 55 Appendix A - Gulf of Mexico Eastern Mississippi Alabama Georgia 46 58 Louisiana 17 49 51 5' M 5 71 n N 66 70 &2 sis 72 6, 55 Q . 41 1 6" 65 2 11 24 21 27 14 ID "7 '2 12 25 Florida 31 32 is 33 28 15 35 7 3 13 23 16 Western 4 Mississippi Louisiana Texas 21 OD 59 , U 20 4 78 5 1 '0 27 19 7 8 11 81 67 55 73 6 28 2 17 40 47 U 42 79 53 69 sis 41 4 62 76 49 72 61 43 64 77 57 U 45 11 Coastal County Number 56 Gulf of Mexico ......... . . '5 "!08'061989,, t ,I,fj@-Killlll 6ehtS,by,,,Cqqn'l yi,'@@I, 777, % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause of where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported kill was reported more fish were killed Gulf of Mexico (Eastern) Florida 1 Bay 10 2,031 90 80 0 2 Calhoun ND ND ND ND ND 3 Charlotte 9 10 89 100 0 * Cirtus 2 75 100 50 0 4 Collier 49 299 100 92 0 5 Columbia 1 15 100 100 0 6 Dade Data found in the South Atlantic Region. 7 De Soto 1 30 100 100 0 8 Dixie ND ND ND ND ND 9 Escambia 26 5,513 85 85 0 10 Franklin 2 20,001 100 100 1 11 Gadsden 2 30,000 100 0 1 12 Gilchrist ND ND ND ND ND 13 Glades 2 6 100 100 0 14 Gulf 4 411 100 75 0 * Hamilton 4 5 75 75 0 15 Hardee 1 3 100 100 0 16 Hendry 8 61 100 88 0 * Hernando 1 3 100 100 0 17 Highlands 5 893 100 100 0 18 Hillsborough 12 76 100 75 0 19 Holmes 1 0 100 0 0 20 Jackson 3 31 67 100 0 21 Jefferson ND ND ND ND ND 22 Lafayette ND ND ND ND ND 23 Lee 12 15 92 100 0 24 Leon NO ND ND ND ND 25 Levy 1 27 100 100 0 26 Liberty 1 0 100 0 0 27 Madison 1 3 100 0 0 28 Manatee 2 2 100 100 0 29 Monroe 7 374 86 100 0 30 Okaloosa 5 1,411 80 80 0 31 Pasco 12 134 100 100 0 32 Pinellas 12 231 100 92 0 33 Polk 19 2,124 89 89 0 34 Santa Rosa 17 66,110 82 94 2 35 Sarasota 6 58 83 67 0 * Sumter 2 9 100 100 0 36 Suwannee ND ND ND ND ND 37 Taylor 2 3 100 100 0 38 Wakulla ND ND ND ND ND 39 Walton 6 110 100 67 0 40 Washington 2 4 100 100 0 Subtotal 250 130,079 93 88 4 Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NRnumber of fish killed not reported;ND,no data was received. Not shown on map. 57 Appendix A 'Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause of where 1 million or State/County Events (X1 00) was reported kill was reported more fish were killed Gulf of Mexico (Eastern) Georgia 41 Brooks NO NO NO NO NO 42 Decatur NO NO NO NO NO 43 Grady NO NO NO NO NO 44 Thomas 2 14 100 50 0 Subtotal 2 14 100 50 0 Alabama 45 Baldwin 12 91,429 83 100 2 46 Choctaw NO NO NO NO NO 47 Clarke NO NO NO NO NO 48 Coffee NO NO NO NO NO 49 Conecuh NO NO NO NO NO 50 Covington 1 0 100 100 0 51 Crenshaw NO NO NO NO NO 52 Escambia NO NO NO NO NO 53 Geneva NO NO NO NO NO 54 Houston NO NO NO NO NO 55 Mobile 30 40,537 93 87 2 56 Monroe NO NO NO NO NO 57 Washington 1 1 100 100 0 58 Wilcox NO NO NO NO NO Subtotal 44 131,967 91 91 4 Mississippi 59 Amite NO NO NO NO NO 60 Franklin NO NO NO NO NO 61 George NO NO NO NO NO 62 Greene NO NO NO NO NO 63 Hancock 2 55 100 100 0 64 Harrison 2 4 50 100 0 65 Jackson 2 20,002 100 50 1 66 Lamar NO NO NO NO NO 67 Lincoln NO NO NO NO NO 68 Marion 1 20 100 100 0 69 Pearl River NO NO NO NO NO 70 Perry NO NO NO NO NO 71 Pike NO NO NO NO NO 72 Stone NO NO NO NO NO 73 Walthall NO NO NO NO NO 74 Wayne NO NO NO NO NO 75 Wilkinson NO NO NO NO NO Subtotal 7 20,081 86 86 1 Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NR, number of fish killed not reported;ND,no data was received. 58 Gulf of Mexico .... ... ... @@i Fish,-Kill E46'nisib ""di A00 0601w@, % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause of where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported kill was reported more fish were killed Gulf of Mexico (Western) Louisiana Acadia 5 961 80 80 0 1 Allen ND ND ND ND ND 2 Ascension 5 12 80 80 0 3 Assumption 9 547 89 89 0 4 Avoyelles ND ND ND ND ND 5 Beauregard ND ND ND ND ND 6 Calcasieu 5 33 60 80 0 7 Cameron 3 3 33 100 0 8 East Baton Rouge 17 144 82 71 0 9 East Feliciana ND ND ND ND ND 10 Evangeline ND ND ND ND ND 11 Iberia 8 73 38 100 0 12 lberville 14 222 79 71 0 13 Jefferson 7 13 43 71 0 * Jefferson Davis 2 NR 0 100 0 14 Lafayette 4 970 50 75 0 15 Lafourche 13 56 54 100 0 16 Livingston 1 6 100 100 0 17 Orleans 9 14 44 78 0 18 Plaquemines 5 873 80 100 0 19 Point Coupee ND ND ND ND ND 20 Rapides ND ND ND ND ND 21 Sabine ND ND ND ND ND 22 St. Bernard 6 4 33 83 0 23 St. Charles 7 115 29 86 0 24 St. Helena ND ND ND ND ND 25 St. James 5 24 80 100 0 26 St. John the Baptist 1 NR 0 100 0 27 St. Landry 1 4 100 100 0 28 St. Martin 1 NR 0 100 0 29 St. Mary 4 778 75 100 0 30 St. Tammany 13 109 69 85 0 31 Tangipahoa 6 7 67 83 0 32 Terrebonne 14 1,144 43 93 0 33 Vermilion 2 10 50 50 0 34 Vernon ND ND ND ND ND 35 Washington- ND ND ND ND ND 36 West Baton Rouge 3 9 100 67 0 37 West Feliciana 2 460 50 100 0 Subtotal 172 6,590 61 85 0 Abbreviations: %, percent; #, number; NR, number of fish killed not reported;ND, no data was received. Not shown on map. 59 Appendix A 117iish7llKlilli EVeilits by County, 1980-1989 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause of where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported kill was reported more fish were killed Gulf of Mexico (Western) Texas 38 Angelina NO NO NO NO NO 39 Aransas 10 6,297 30 70 0 40 Austin 2 5 100 100 0 41 Bee NO NO NO NO NO 42 Brazoria 36 15,569 69 81 1 43 Brooks NO NO NO NO NO 44 Calhoun 11 225 45 82 0 45 Cameron 8 13,785 63 88 1 46 Chambers 20 160,321 90 90 5 47 Colorado NO NO NO NO ND 48 De Witt NO NO NO NO NO 49 Duval NO NO NO NO NO 50 Fayette NO NO NO NO ND 51 Fort Bend 19 5,928 68 58 0 52 Galveston 72 1,059,707 61 90 8 53 Goliad NO NO NO NO NO 54 Gonzales NO NO NO NO NO 55 Hardin 1 NR 0 0 0 56 Harris 66 231,757 59 80 3 57 Hidalgo 1 1 100 100 0 58 Jackson 1 0 100 100 0 59 Jasper 3 245 100 100 0 60 Jefferson 20 1,821 75 80 0 61 Jim Hogg NO NO NO NO NO 62 Jim Wells 1 NR 0 0 0 63 Karnes NO NO NO NO NO 64 Kenedy 1 40 100 0 0 65 Kleberg 4 0 25 100 0 66 Lavaca 3 20 67 67 0 67 Liberty 6 27 33 83 0 68 Live Oak NO NO NO NO NO 69 McMullen NO NO NO NO NO 70 Matagorda 24 5,969 54 88 0 71 Newton 4 NR 0 75 0 72 Nueces 15 49,484 60 80 2 73 Orange 14 8,415 79 79 0 74 Refugio 3 5 67 67 0 75 San Jacinto NO NO NO NO NO 76 San Patricio 5 33,260 60 100 1 77 Starr 1 1 100 100 0 78 Tyler NO NO NO NO NO 79 Victoria 1 NR 0 0 0 80 Waller NO NO NO NO NO 81 Washington NO NO NO NO NO 82 Webb NO NO NO NO NO 83 Wharton 3 NR 0 100 0 84 Willacy NO NO NO NO NO Subtotal 355 1,592,880 66 81 21 Total 830 1,881,610 75 84 30 National Total 3,654 4,071,630 84 79 86 Abbreviations: %, percent; number; NRnumber of fish killed not reported;ND, no data was received. 60 Gulf of Mexico fish-X111FIEV6 s a 9 n gY Floridaa Georgiaa Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Year e k e k e k e k e k e k e k 1980 25 56 0 0 7 194 0 0 2 158 58 1,095,440 92 1,095,848 1981 32 59,704 0 0 1 0 1 2 10 76 52 56,061 96 115,843 1982 24 3,662 0 0 2 10 0 0 5 4 66 78,534 97 82,209 1983 24 30,782 1 3 3 1 0 0 17 220 52 74,994 97 106,000 1984 26 22,911 0 0 12 118,753 0 0 22 412 22 235,828 82 377,904 1985 26 1,350 0 0 3 3 1 20 22 978 0 0 52 2,352 1986 30 10,938 0 0 3 70 2 55 38 3,323 9 1 82 14,387 1987 16 115 0 0 10 12,934 1 4 16 487 15 6 58 13,546 1988 21 317 0 0 2 2 1 0 17 115 53 48,687 94 49,1121 1989 26 243 1 11 1 2 1 20,000 23 817 28 3,328 80 24,401 Total 250 130,079 2 14 44 131,967 7 20,081 172 6,590 355 1,592,880 830 1,881,610 ..... ....... `4'nti:i@ Direct bi6se'@A 980-1 gifish-Kill Ey Florida' Georgisa Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Direct Cause e k e k e k e k e k e k e k Low D. O@ 116 29,947 0 0 23 131,901 0 0 63 1,577 119 1,173,795 321 1,337,220 Temperature 17 421 0 0 0 0 1 20,000 5 753 is 39,617 41 60,791 Sedimentation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 359 5 20 11 379 Eutrophication 15 51,206 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 5 6 13,015 26 64,228 Disease 4 19 0 0 1 <1 0 0 2 <1 8 20 15 39 Stranding 6 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 5 5,169 16 5,306 Storm Event 7 164 0 0 0 0 1 20 17 1,009 23 43,375 48 44,569 Wastewater 11 1,255 1 3 10 44 0 0 21 1,058 29 224,624 72 226,984 Animal Waste 3 815 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 1 1,000 7 1,822 pH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 <1 4 3 Organic Chemicals 2 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 3 88 1 NR 7 94 Inorganic Chemicals/Metals 4 84 0 0 1 NR 0 0 3 577 18 51,713 26 52,375 Mixed Chemicals 10 11,647 0 0 3 12 0 0 5 4 6 6,598 24 18,261 Pesticides 10 379 0 0 0 0 1 NR 2 NP 13 3,765 26 4,143 Nutrients 12 1,557 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 404 19 1,966 Salinity Changes 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 59 1 NR 2 13 6 72 Petroleum 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 NR 20 28,594 23 28,644 Chlorine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 75 2 75 Red Tide 1 1,909 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 <1 9 1,909 Predation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 31 30,489 1 11 4 3 1 2 26 1,142 64 1,083 127 32,730 Total 250 130,079 2 14 44 131,967 7 20,081 172 6,590 355 1,592,880 830 1,881,610- Abbreviations: g number of events:knumber of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported; Low D.O., low-dissolved oxygen. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. 61 Appendix A Fish-Kill Events by Land-Use Cause, 1980-1989 Florida a Georgia a Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Land-Use Cause e k e k e k e k e k e k e k Agriculture 6 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 43 11 4,893 24 5,031 Industrial 12 61,000 1 11 1 10 0 0 29 2,179 54 12,332 97 75,532 Urban 56 3,153 1 3 10 42 0 0 21 85 58 273,098 146 276,381 Impoundment 16 1,457 0 0 4 134 0 0 36 1,073 13 31,260 69 33,923 Water-Related 18 2,215 0 0 1 68 5 20,079 14 927 67 594,179 105 617,468 Silviculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wildland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mining 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NR 5 2 7 6 Military 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 141 62,154 0 0 28 131,713 2 2 64 2,283 147 677,116 382 873,268 Total 250 130,079 2 14 44 131,967 7 20,081 172 6,590 355 1,592,880 830 1,881,610 Fish-Kill Events by Incident, 1980-1989 Florida' Georgia a Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Incident e k e k e k e k e k e k e k Runoff 48 279 0 0 1 NR 0 0 8 57 23 21,348 80 21,685 Routine Release 6 10,056 0 0 3 11 0 0 23 1,945 26 798 58 12,809 Accidental Release 6 207 1 3 3 24 0 0 16 138 23 3,660 49 4,032 Spill 7 1,826 0 0 0 0 1 NR 2 460 32 1,835 42 4,121 Spraying 5 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NR 4 3,760 10 3,878 Natural 26 2,570 0 0 6 204 5 20,079 43 1,251 71 615,259 151 639,364 Drawdown 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 2 190 7 197 Dredging or Drilling 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 358 10 10 17 1,368 Unspecified 150 114,022 1 11 31 131,729 1 2 69 2,376 164 946,018 416 1,194,158 Total 250 130,079 2 14 44 131,967 7 20,081 172 6,590 355 1,592,880 830 1,881,610 Abbreviations: a number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NF?, number of fish killed not reported. a. Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions. 62 Appendix A - Pacific 57 49 45 5 502 51 Washington 48 54 60 56 55 53 62 61 47 31 32 58 46 424 40 44 30 41 39 29 38 Oregon 35 33 37 36 322 426 7 2 11 28 249 12 23 6 217 16 19 21 20 California 13 18 14 27 5 10 15 17, Coastal County Number 64 Pacific 'P(sh-01"Evehi @,by 6iintv 9'' 071 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause of where 1 million or State/County Events (XII 00) was reported kill was reported more fish were killed California 1 Alameda 6 516 100 83 0 2 Contra Costa 6 65 100 67 0 3 Del Norte NO NO NO NO NO 4 Humboldt 1 <1 100 100 0 5 Los Angeles 12 5,739 100 83 0 6 Marin 11 25 100 82 0 7 Mendocino 2 1 100 100 0 8 Monterey 9 200 100 56 0 9 Napa 1 1 100 100 0 10 Orange 5 66 so 60 0 11 Placer NO NO NO NO NO 12 Sacramento 7 28 86 43 0 13 San Benito NO NO NO NO NO 14 San Bernardino NO NO NO NO NO 15 San Diego 2 14 100 100 0 16 San Francisco 1 500 100 100 0 17 San Joaquin 27 396 100 78 0 18 San Luis Obispo 13 160 100 85 0 19 San Mateo 17 280 94 65 0 * Santa Barbara 5 363 80 60 0 20 Santa Clara 6 15 100 83 0 21 Santa Cruz 5 525 100 80 0 22 Siskiyou 1 101 100 100 0 23 Solano 3 3 100 0 0 24 Sonoma 5 107 100 100 0 25 Sutter 1 1 100 100 0 26 Trinity NO NO NO NO NO 27 Ventura NO NO NO NO NO 28 Yolo 2 162 100 100 0 Subtotal 148 9,267 97 74 0 Oregon 29 Benton NO NO NO NO NO 30 Clackamas 6 165 67 67 0 31 Clatsop NO NO NO NO NO 32 Columbia 8 13 75 88 0 33 Coos 2 45 50 100 0 34 Curry 1 5 100 0 0 35 Douglas 3 283 100 67 0 36 Jackson NO NO NO NO NO 37 Josephine 1 123 100 100 0 38 Lane 5 37 100 60 0 39 Lincoln 4 16 100 100 0 40 Multnomah 9 186 89 56 0 41 Polk NO NO NO NO NO A 42 Tillamook 1 2 100 100 0 43 Washington NO NO NO NO NO 44 Yarnhill NO NO NO NO NO Subtotal 40 874 90 73 0 Abbreviations: NR, number of fish killed not reported; NO, no data was received. Not shown on map. 65 Appendix A Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989 % of events % of events of events Killed where # killed where cause of where 1 million or State/County Events (X100) was reported kill was reported more fish were killed Washington 45 Clallam 3 4 100 67 0 46 Clark 4 16 50 75 0 47 Cowlitz 2 NR 0 100 0 48 Grays Harbor 2 525 100 100 0 49 Island 2 25,700 50 100 1 50 Jefferson NO NO NO NO NO 51 King 39 1,037 79 56 0 52 Kitsap 1 2 100 0 0 53 Lewis 1 99 100 100 0 54 Mason 2 3 100 0 0 55 Pacific NO NO NO NO NO 56 Pierce 9 212 89 100 0 57 Skagit 3 20 33 106 0 58 Skamania NO NO NO NO NO 59 Snohomish 16 859 75 81 0 60 Thurston 5 3,554 80 1.00 0 61 Wahkiakum NO NO NO NO NO * Whatcom 16 640 75 75 0 62 Yakima NO NO NO NO NO Subtotal 105 32,670 76 72 1 Total 293 42,811 88 73 1 National Total 3,654 4,071,630 84 79 86 @bbreviations: NR, number of fish killed not reported; ND, no data was received. Not shown on map. 66 Pacific Fish-Kill Events by Year, 1980-1989 California Oregon Washington Total Year e k e k e k e k 1980 23 713 13 195 7 519 43 1,427 1981 31 522 8 102 10 29,856 49 30,480 1982 24 6,258 5 59 8 129 37 6,445 1983 13 105 0 0 6 424 19 529 1984 12 315 7 2 9 178 28 496 1985 19 506 2 124 6 372 27 1,002 1986 5 13 5 392 12 462 22 867 1987 10 711 0 0 28 706 38 1,417 1988 9 124 0 0 9 13 18 136 1989 2 <1 0 0 10 12 12 12 Total 148 9,267 40 874 105 32,670 293 42,811 s6"'@'1'9'80_1 989 'Dii,66t dau California Oregon Washington Total Direct Cause e k e k e k e k Low D. 0. 25 949 1 NR 7 25,986 33 26,935 Temperature 6 80 2 2 0 0 8 82 Sedimentation 1 150 0 0 0 0 1 150 Eutrophication 1 <1 1 2 1 1 3 3 Disease 5 90 0 0 2 <1 7 90 Stranding 6 439 3 400 3 262 12 1,101 Storm Event 1 51 0 0 0 0 1 51 Wastewater 8 676 0 0 6 952 14 1,628 Animal Waste 5 50 0 0 21 853 26 903 pH 0 0 0 0 3 30 3 30 Organic Chemicals 5 84 3 19 1 1 9 103 Inorganic Chemicals/Metals 7 313 6 195 3 3,160 16 3,668 Mixed Chemicals 4 108 4 176 5 104 13 388 Pesticides 17 279 3 7 7 555 27 841 Nutrients 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 5 Salinity Changes 2 149 0 0 0 0 2 149 Petroleum 5 47 3 <1 7 98 15 145 Chlorine 11 5,247 3 48 10 458 24 5,753 Red Tide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Predation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 38 550 11 26 29 210 78 786 Total 148 9,267 40 874 105 32,670 293 42,811 Abbreviations: et number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported; Low D.O., low-dissolved oxygen. 67 Appendix A Fish-Kill Events by Land-Use Cause, 1980-1989 California Oregon Washington Total Land-Use Cause e k e k e k e k Agriculture 10 226 5 52 26 1,026 41 1,304 Industrial 5 5,058 13 719 8 567 26 6,344 Urban 10 972 2 13 19 1,344 31 2,329 Impoundment 13 510 3 5 8 3,688 24 4,203 Water-Related 5 69 1 10 8 25,723 14 25,801 Silviculture 1 101 0 0 0 0 1 101 Wildland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Military 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unspecified 104 2,332 16 75 36 323 156 2,730 Total 148 9,267 40 874 105 32,670 293 42,811 Fish-Kill Events by Incident, 1980-1989 California Oregon Washington Total Incident e k e k e k e k Runoff 3 33 0 0 4 487 7 519 Routine Release 4 5,600 5 51 17 1,182 26 6,834 Accidental Release 3 76 3 12 7 128 13 217 Spill 10 97 8 17 10 729 28 843 Spraying 1 101 0 0 6 206 7 306 Natural 12 134 3 12 9 28,844 24 28,990 Drawdown 3 432 1 110 3 545 7 1,086 Dredging or Drilling 2 158 0 0 0 0 2 158 Unspecified 110 2,637 20 671 49 551 179 3,859 Total 148 9,267 40 874 105 32,670 293 42,811 Abbreviations: e number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR, number of fish killed not reported. 68 XICO NORTH ATLANTICI MIDDLE ATLANTIC SOUTH ATLANTH PACIFIC eA 0' kq 10 -k IOP7@1 ce '@p 1@0* 01 Program initiated: '72 '60 '60 '73 ND '40 '65 '50 '80 '64 '69 '51 '80 '57 '75 '70 '79 '75 *75 '65 '81 '69 Data available from: '70 '65 '73 ND ND ND '67 '76 '64 7.9 '80 '80 '57 '75 '80 '79 '75 '78 '65 '81 '69 Are records maintained in a central office? Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Z Number of agencies in reporting process: 3 1 2 3 2 5 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 Are records computerized? N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N Y Z Are annual reports maintained? N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N N 0 2 < FTEs (full-time equivalents) in 1989: <1 1 6-10 <1 ND >10 1-2 ND <1 3-5 6-10 ND 1-2 >10 ND >10 1-2 <1 6-10 ND <1 1-2 cr 0 0 cc EL 2 Level of program support L M UM L L M L M L M M L L H/L L H L L L L M L Change in support during '85-'89: S S I/S S S S ND ND S S S D S S/I S I I S I D I D Did reorganization occur during '85-'89? N N Y Y N N N N N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Lu 4 U) Percentage of trained personnel 100 25 100 50 0 ND 25 100 25 75 75 ND 0 100 ND 100 50 0 100 75 100 0 Z) 4 .6 Percentage of all fish kills reported: 100 100 100 75 50 50 50 100 100 ND ND 100 100 75 50 75 75 75 75 25 75 25 U) LLJ Percentage of field or laboratory chemical 25 100 100 25 50 25 25 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 ND 100 ND 100 100 75 100 25 w 0 analyses that determines cause: 4 0 rr a- W :4 Frequency of written report filed 100 100 100 100 100 ND 50 ND 100 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 75 100 25 U) A,B, B,C A-E A,C, A,B, A-F B,C A-C A,C A-F B,C A-C, A-E A-C A,E, A-F A-F B-D A-C A-F A-F A-C Lu Use of fish-kill reports: > C,F F C D,F E,F F Z NORTH ATLANTIC Notes: No No response Reflects comments from two different agencies L = not adequate; M = fairly adequate/adequate; H very good D = decreased; S = same; I = increased 4 Percent intervals: 0 = 0%; 25 = 1 - 25%; 50 = 26 - 50%; 75 = 51 - 75%; 100 76 - 100% A =To indicate an emergency situation requiring immediate response; B =To determine the amount of environmental/economic damage; C =To determine the source and/or parties responsible for the kill so fines and/or penalities can be assigned; D =To indicate the health of the aquatic resources; E =To indicate a trend in the health of the aquatic resources; F To meet reporting requirements of the EPA 305(b) Water Quality Reports ININIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 6668 14103 0868