CI 5 5. 2-F Si/V
Fish Kills in Coastal Waters
1980-1989
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
DEC 3 0 1991
DOCUMENTS COLLECTION
U.S. Depository Copy
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Cover Photo
Oyster Creek, Texas Fish Kill
by George Guillen
Texas Water Commission
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
Strategic Environmental Assessments Division
Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Acknowledgements
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
programs around the Nation
vary greatly, they indicate that
fish kills have not been a
pervasive problem in the
Nation's estuarine and coastal
areas. However, recurring kills
or "hotspots" do occur in some
areas.
This report summarizes results of
efforts across the Nation to
identify, report, and assess the
causes of fish kills in coastal
rivers, streams, and estuarine
waters between 1980 and 1989.
The location, extent, severity,
timing, and cause of over 3,600
fish-kill events are documented.
Data are shown for the 22 states
bordering the Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and Pacific coasts
(Figure 1).
It would be ideal if information
was available on the effects of
pollutants on all aquatic organ-
isms. However, this is not the
case and very little is known
about how the variety of pollut-
ants released to the environment
affects these organisms. One
approach to understanding these
effects is to compile information
on fish kills.
Although assessments based
solely on fish kills provide only
partial and conservative infer-
ences of pollutant effects, they
can provide useful information on
the spatial and temporal dimen-
sions of potential problems. For
example, the information com-
piled in this report contains data
on the date, location, and
probable cause of kills. Ana-
lyzed together, these factors can
help identify areas where recur-
ring problems exist.
The data also provide a temporal
record that can be used to help
evaluate evidence of trends in
water quality. Fish-kill events
can be related to specific human
activities such as an accidental
pesticide spill or the discharge of
high levels of chlorine disinfec-
tant from a wastewater treatment
plant. Events are also linked to
natural phenomena such as
oxygen depletion resulting from
sustained periods of hot weather,
coupled with low-flow conditions;
or in many cases, to a more
complex combination of human-
related and natural factors such
as oxygen depletion resulting
from algal blooms stimulated by
nutrients carried in nonpoint
source runoff.
The information compiled should
be useful to environmental
managers and planners at the
Federal, State, and local level to
pinpoint "problem" areas. Com-
piling this information into a
consistent national framework
provides decisionmakers con-
cerned with regional or national
issues with the ability to target
areas of concern or devise a
more uniform approach to data
collection.
These data are being used in
two on-going projects in the
National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration's (NOAA)
Strategic Environmental Assess-
ments (SEA) Division. First, fish-
kill information will be used to
evaluate the effects of agricul-
tural pesticide use in coastal
Figure 1 . Fish-Kill Events Reported in 22 Coastal States, 1980-1989
r~ — !
t
[
14
< North
m
■ ^J^ Atlantic
Pacific V ^^
^te.
i
f
Middle
Atlantic
i\ \'
^M
fcU
2
South
Atlantic
Number of Events
■ 181 to 1292
■ 112 to 181
V Gulf of Mexico
\
|
□ 32 fo 112
□ 1 to 32
Introduction
areas (Pait et al.. 1991). Sec-
ond, they will be used to assess
nutrient enrichment problems in
the Nation's estuaries through
NOAA's National Estuarine
Eutrophication Survey (Hinga et
al.. 1991).
State Programs
State agencies investigate and
document fish-kill events
because they typically signal a
severe environmental stress on
a waterbody. Each agency's
immediate goal is to identify and
correct the cause of the prob-
lem. Events are documented so
that a record of the magnitude
and probable cause exists in
case an attempt is made to
recover costs for the resource
injury.
Eighteen of 22 coastal states
indicated that responding to an
environmental emergency was
the primary purpose of their fish-
kill reporting program(s).
However, only 1 1 states indi-
cated that fish-kill events are
used as an environmental
indicator in their water-quality
assessments or in Federal
assessments such as the
biennial reports required by
section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act (Environmental Law
Institute, 1988) (Appendix B).
EPA Fish-Kill Data Base
The U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) fish-kill
reporting program is a continua-
tion of the U.S. Public Health
Service program that tracked
events from 1960 to 1971. It is
the only program that (until
recently) has collected informa-
tion nationwide on fish-kill
events. Although EPA has not
published a report since 1976, it
continued to collect information
on fish kills until recently. EPA
encourages states to continue
to collect data on fish kills for
inclusion in the 305(b) water-
quality assessment reports.
In January 1 991 , EPA discontinued its
fish-kill reporting program due to
competing program priorities.
State participation in the
program was voluntary and has
declined significantly since
1979. In 1988, only 12 of 22
coastal states reported fish kills
to EPA. Agencies in several
states appeared to have been
unaware of EPA's program. In
addition, the data collected only
included pollution-related fish
kills and not those attributed to
natural phenomena. Conse-
quently, a significant cause of
fish kills (natural phenomena)
is not accounted for in the EPA
data base. The EPA data base
was only of limited use for this
report (about a third of the
information presented is from
the EPA data base).
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
80
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
Introduction
Data Collection and
Verification
Data were obtained by either a
state compiling and sending
NOAA hard copy or digital files,
or by the project team making a
site visit. Site visits were made
to Maryland, Virginia, Oregon,
and Washington.
Information on fish-kill events
and on the operation of report-
ing program(s) was collected
from each state and entered
into a NOAA data base. Data
collected on each reportedfish-
kill event included: 1) name
and type of waterbody; 2)
location (county, nearest town,
and latitude and longitude
coordinates where available);
3) date of kill; 4) cause of kill;
5) species and number of fish
killed; 6) extent of area af-
fected; and 7) duration of
critical effects. Special empha-
sis was placed on obtaining
information describing the
cause of each event.
When the data provided for an
event were insufficient to
characterize the cause, the
label "unspecified" was
assigned. For a "land-use"
cause, 60 percent of all records
were assigned "unspecified";
for incident, 62 percent; and for
direct cause, 21 percent. In
cases where the cause re-
ported did not reflect a naturally
or human-induced change in
water quality, the event was
omitted. For example, kills
caused by commercial fishing
operations, recreational fisher-
men discards, underwater
explosions, vandalism, spawn-
ing stress, stocking stress,
catch and release stress, and
entrapment in live bait boxes
were omitted.
Figure 2. Summary of Fish-Kill Events from 1980-1989 for 22
Coastal States
600
500
^ 400-
° 300-
200-
100-
150
100 «
-50
1980
(21)
1981
(21)
1982
(16)
1983 1984 1985 1986
(15) (17) (18) (20)
Year
(Number of States Reporting)
1987
(20)
1988
(19)
1989
(17)
Major Data Elements
for Each Event
Land-use Cause identifies the type of
land use from which a pollutant
associated with an event originated
(e.g., agricultural, industrial, urban,
impoundment, silviculture, wildland,
mining, or military operations). Events
associated with eutrophication, low-
dissolved oxygen, etc., were termed
"water-related."
Source identifies the physical entity or
activity from which a pollutant associ-
ated with an event originated (e.g.,
farm, industrial plant, wastewater
treatment plant, or canal).
Incident describes the action that
introduced a pollutant to a waterbody
(e.g., runoff, routine or accidental
releases, spill, spraying, natural,
drawdown, and dredging or drilling
activities).
Direct Cause lists the actual cause for
a fish kill (e.g., low-dissolved oxygen,
pesticide, stranding, pH, temperature,
or nutrients).
Specific Pollutant names the specific
agent that caused a fish kill.
To verify the information
collected, all data were re-
viewed by the participating
State agencies.
This NOAA-developed data
base was also compared to
EPA's data base. Event records
or parts of records were added,
where appropriate. Sixty-two
percent of the events in the
NOAA data base came from
State agencies, 7 percent from
local agencies, and 31 percent
from EPA.
Information was also collected
on selected characteristics of
each State's reporting
program(s) to better understand
the Nation's infrastructure for
fish-kill reporting. Information on
program organization, investiga-
tion procedures, on-site and off-
site testing of fish tissue and
water samples, documentation,
distribution of fish-kill-related
information, and use of the data
and publications is presented in
Appendix B.
Limitations of the Data
Interpretation of the data pre-
sented and any conclusions
drawn must be tempered with a
clear understanding of the
limitations of the data.
Introduction
Figure 3. Sites of Major Fish-Kill Events from 1980-1989 for 22 Coastal States
f Major Kill Events
(>1 million)
Top Ten Fish Kills
County Slate
Waterbody
Fish Killed
(millions)
Galveston. TX
Jolly Rogers Canal
50
Orange. FL
Lake Apopka
30
Anne Arundel, MD
Chesapeake Bay
25
Galveston. TX
Gull of Mexico
21
Galveston, TX
Clear Creek
20
Kent. DE
Little River
18
Harris. TX
San Jacinto Bay-East
15
Wicomico. MD
Nanticoke River
14
Lancaster. VA
Mulberry Creek-Headwaters
11
Chambers. TX
Old River
10
How Complete are the Data?
An important part of data
collection was to determine by
state the proportion documented
of all probable fish kills occur-
ring over the 10-year period.
Twelve of the 22 states indi-
cated that their reporting
programs documented more
than 50 percent of all probable
kills during the period. The
states that reported the most
complete coverage (76-100%)
were Maine. New Hampshire,
Massachusetts. Pennsylvania.
Delaware. North Carolina, and
South Carolina. The two states
that reported the least amount
of coverage (1-25%) were
California and Washington
(Appendix B).
Not all the events documented
contained the same information
regarding direct causes and
numbers of fish killed. Informa-
tion varied by state and within
states, depending on available
resources and the perceived
severity of an event. Neverthe-
less, almost 80 percent of all
events contained some informa-
tion on the direct cause and 84
percent contained at least an
approximation of the number of
fish killed.
Factors that Influenced Re-
porting. The extent to which a
fish-kill event is reported and
how completely it is documented
depends on several factors.
• How a state assigns responsi-
bility for investigating fish kills. In
some states, a single agency is
responsible. In others, responsi-
bility is assigned by geographic
region or type of waterbody
(fresh versus marine). In this
case, fish-kill information is more
dispersed and, therefore, more
difficult to collect.
• The staff available to investi-
gate events. In states with small
budgets for fish-kill reporting
programs, there may be an
inadequate number of staff to
investigate all events.
• The emphasis a state places
on the type of event to investi-
gate. For example, some states
only investigate kills of economi-
cally important fish species,
while other states respond to all
kills.
• The size of the population
surrounding a waterbody. Fish
kills are reported more often
around densely populated areas
at least in part because more
people witness and report the
event. Kills occurring in
sparsely settled areas often go
unreported.
• The timeliness of the investi-
gation. If the investigation does
not take place promptly, fish
wash downstream, sink, or are
eaten by scavengers, lowering
the number and possibly the
species of fish reported killed.
In addition, the contaminant or
Introduction
environmental condition causing
an event may be diluted or
degraded so that a direct cause
can no longer be attributed to a
kill.
Although no absolute conclu-
sions can be drawn from fish-kill
data alone, combining the data
with other information on pollu-
tion releases and environmental
quality can provide useful
insights to analysts and
decisionmakers.
National Results
From 1980 to 1989, over 3,650
fish-kill events were reported in
533 coastal and near coastal
counties in 22 states. These
events involved over 407 million
fish. The number of events
reported was highest in 1986
(519), and the greatest number
of fish killed was in 1980 (138
million) (Table 1). The land-use
cause, incident, and direct cause
most frequently cited were urban
land use, natural events, and
low-dissolved oxygen.
Trends and Seasonal Varia-
tions. During the 10-year
period, the number of states
reporting events in estuarine and
coastal waters varied from 1 5 in
1983 to 21 in 1980 and 1981
(Figure 2). Consequently, fish-
kill events are difficult to evaluate
accurately over time. However,
an upward trend exists in the
number of events and a down-
ward trend in the number of fish
killed nationwide (Figure 2).
Seasonal variations play an
important role in the timing of
fish-kill events. As might be
expected, the largest number of
events (64%) and the highest
number of fish killed (86%) were
during the warmest months of
the year (May through Septem-
ber). The month with the
single greatest number of
events was August, while the
greatest number of fish killed
was in June.
Geographical Distribution.
States reporting the most fish-
kill events were Florida (1 ,292),
Maryland (455), Texas (355),
and South Carolina (191). The
top five counties with the
greatest number of events
were Palm Beach, FL (383);
Broward, FL (277); Anne
Arundel, MD (182); Dade, FL
(87); and Beaufort, SC (73)
(Appendix A).
States reporting the most fish
killed were Texas (159 million),
Florida (77 million), Maryland
(68 million), Delaware (28
million) and North Carolina (26
million) (Appendix A). The top
five counties with the greatest
number of fish killed were
Galveston, TX (106 million);
Orange, FL (36 million); Anne
Arundel, MD (36 million); Kent,
DE (24 million); and Harris, TX
(23 million) (Appendix A).
Sources and Causes. The
land-use causes most fre-
quently cited were urban
(13%), industrial (7%), and
agriculture (4%). The top three
incidents introducing pollutants
into a waterbody were naturally
occurring conditions (16%),
runoff (7%), and routine
releases (5%). The direct
causes most frequently cited
were low-dissolved oxygen
(41%), wastewater (5%),
eutrophication (5%), and
pesticides (4%).
Major Fish Kills. Eighty-six
individual events occurred
where an estimated one million
or more fish were killed. These
events took place in 39 counties
within 14 states. The greatest
concentration of these events
was in Galveston (8) and
Chambers (5) counties in
Texas; Anne Arundel (8) and
Wicomico (5) counties in
Maryland; and Beaufort County
(6), North Carolina.
The largest reported fish kill
occurred in the Jolly Rogers
Canal, Jamaica Beach,
Galveston County, Texas,
where an estimated 50-million
fish died (Figure 3). The kill
occurred in June 1980 and was
attributed to low-dissolved
oxygen from unspecified
sources. The only species
reported killed was gulf menha-
den (Brevoortia patronus).
Many different combinations of
land-use causes and direct
causes result in major fish-kill
events (Table 2). However, the
majority of these events is
characterized by low-dissolved
oxygen, high temperatures
(summer months), a large area
of water with poor circulation,
and involves small fish such as
menhaden (Brevoortia sp.) that
tend to school in large numbers
and are very intolerant of low-
dissolved oxygen conditions.
Although events occur where a
relatively toxic substance is
released or spilled causing
considerable damage to fish,
these events occur less fre-
quently and tend to be more
localized, killing fewer fish.
The families of fish most
commonly involved in a kill
event are Clupeidae (menha-
den, shad, herring).
Centrarchidae (sunfish. bluegill.
bass), and Cyprinidae (carps,
minnows, dace, chubs, shin-
ers). Of the above. Clupeidae
are involved in 36 percent of all
Introduction
fish-kill events and account for
61 percent of the total number
of fish killed.
Five sections follow that present
results for individual coastal
regions: North Atlantic; Middle
Atlantic: South Atlantic; Gulf of
Mexico: and Pacific. The
concluding comments section
discusses potential uses of the
data. Information on the
number of events and fish killed
by region. State, and county,
and information on State
reporting programs are provided
in Appendices A and B.
Table 2. Land-Use Cause and Direct Cause of Major Fish Kills from
1980- 1989 for 22 Coastal States
Land-use cause/
Total
% reports
Number
% fish killed
Direct cause of kill
reports
of fish
(millions)
Industry
Eutrophication
1
1
5
1
Wastewater
1
1
1
<1
Mixed Chemicals
1
1
1
<1
Pesticides
1
1
1
<1
Subtotal
4
5
8
<1
Urban
Low-Dissolved Ox
ygen
1
1
1
<1
Eutrophication
1
1
1
<1
Wastewater
2
2
22
6
Mixed Chemicals
1
1
30
8
Nutrients
1
1
6
2
Subtotal
6
7
60
16
Impoundments
Low-Dissolved Ox
ygen
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
North Atlantic
Figure 4. Reported Fish-Kill Events by County. 1980-1989
New
Hampshire
Massachusetts
■ 4 to 1 3
■ 2 to 3
□ 1
□ No events reported
North Atlantic
The North Atlantic had the
least number of events and
least number of fish killed
among regions. This can be
partially explained by the
climate and physical features
of the estuaries in this region.
The number of events re-
ported each year was greatest
during the summer months.
The greatest number of
events occurred in Penobscot
County, Maine. Wastewater
discharges, low-dissolved
oxygen, and chemical re-
leases were the three leading
direct causes of fish kills.
The Data
In this region, 92 percent of
reports included the number of
fish killed, 84 percent included
the direct cause of the event, 77
percent included the land-use
cause, and 67 percent included
the type of incident (Appendix
A). This region had the second
most complete reporting of the
number of fish killed and direct
causes among regions. Of the
states in this region, Maine's
reporting was the most com-
plete and New Hampshire's was
the least complete.
Fish-Kill Events
Fish-kill events were reported in
1 5 of the 31 counties in the
study area (16 counties in
Maine, 8 in New Hampshire,
and 7 in Massachusetts)
(Figure 4).
The North Atlantic had the
fewest number of reported
events (48) and least number of
fish killed (4,090,300). Maine
accounted for over half of the
fish-kill events reported in the
region with 28, followed by
Massachusetts (19) and New
Hampshire (1).
Figure 5. Number of Events and Fish Killed. 1980-1989
4.000
c
CD
>
LU
"O
01
c
o
D.
CD
DC
Massachusetts accounted for
the majority of the fish killed in
the region, with almost 3.9
million or 96 percent of all
reported fish killed between
1980 and 1989. However,
most of the total for Massa-
chusetts can be attributed to
one event that occurred in
July 1983 in Wellfleet Harbor
in Cape Cod Bay. Over 3.9
million fish were reported
killed in this event. The
incident was reported as a
natural event, and the direct
cause cited was low-dissolved
oxygen. No other single
event in the region accounted
for more than 100,500 fish
killed.
Trends. The number of
events reported from 1980 to
1989 does not appear to show
a trend (Figure 5). However.
an apparent seasonal pattern
exists in the region. The
majority of events and the
greatest number of fish killed
were reported in July. August,
and September (Figure 6).
This seasonal pattern exists
across the Nation, with the
majority of kills occurring
during the summer months.
Figure 6. Number of Events and Fish Killed by Month. 1980-1989
400
JFMAMJJASOND
Month
J FMAMJJASOND
Month
North Atlantic
Sources and Causes
A number of factors may
account for the relatively low
number of fish kills observed in
the North Atlantic. The climate
of this region is colder than
other regions. Therefore, fish
are subjected to less thermal
stress. The generally fast-
flowing rivers in the region and
the strong tides and basin
geometry in many of its estuar-
ies result in well mixed and
aerated waterbodies not highly
susceptible to stratification and
associated low-dissolved
oxygen levels. This is in
contrast to the more placid
coastal plain rivers and shallow
drowned-river systems in the
Middle Atlantic. South Atlantic,
and Gulf of Mexico. Finally, the
North Atlantic covers the
smallest land area of the five
regions, has the lowest percent-
age of agricultural land (a
potentially important land-use
cause), and contains only 4
percent of all the existing point
sources in the five coastal
regions (NOAA. 1990). As a
result, impacts due to human
activities are less severe in this
region
The sources and causes of fish
kills can be broken down into
two different types of events.
One type is related to human
activities such as routine
releases of wastewater or
mixed chemicals from a variety
of different sources (e.g..
trucking accidents, various
industries, sewage treatment
plants, and pig farms).
Routine releases were the most
frequently cited incidents
causing these fish kills (Figure
7). The majority of the routine
releases was emitted from
industrial plants. Wastewater
discharges, low-dissolved
oxygen, and pH were the three
leading direct causes of fish kills
(Figure 8). Industry and agricul-
ture were the two leading land-
use causes associated with fish
kills in the region (Figure 9).
The other type of event that led
to a substantial number of kills
in the region is naturally occur-
ring phenomenon caused by a
combination of environmental
factors (i.e., water and air
temperatures, wind, precipita-
tion, and resident flora). Most of
these events can be attributed
to one or more of the following:
low-dissolved oxygen; predatory
stress; high temperatures; algal
blooms; and/or bacterial infec-
tions.
In Maine, all 28 of the reported
events indicated the direct
cause of the kill. Wastewater
was the direct cause in nine of
the 28 events. Twenty-five of
the 28 reported events indicated
the land-use cause of the kill.
Industrial land use was the land-
use cause in 1 9 of the 25
events. In 25 of the 28 reported
events, a direct cause was
linked with a land-use cause.
In New Hampshire, the direct
cause of the only reported fish-
kill event was inorganic chemi-
cals/metals, and the land-use
cause was urban land use.
In Massachusetts, 12 of the 19
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in four of the 12 events.
Eleven of the 19 reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Agricultural
land use was the land-use
cause in six of the 1 1 events. In
nine of the 19 reported events,
a direct cause was linked with a
land-use cause.
Figure 7. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Type of
Incident'
Drawdown
(13%)
Routine release
(34%)
(13%
Figure 8. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Direct
Cause*
Stranding
(7%)_ All others
(32%)
Low-dissolved
Wastewater
oxygen
(29%)
(22%)
Figure 9. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Land-Use
Cause*
Water-
related
(19%) J
All others
(3%)
Agricultural
(19%)
Industrial
(51%)
'Does not include information from
unspecified events.
10
North Atlantic
Data tables containing the
number of events and fish killed
by county, state, region, year,
direct cause, land-use cause,
and incident are in Appendix A.
Hotspots and
Recurring Kills
The greatest number of kills (13)
in the region occurred in
Penobscot County, Maine.
Twelve of these were attributed
to releases from industrial land
use. This county contains 45
industrial sources, six of which
are related to production of
paper products.
Mattanawcook stream in
Penobscot County was the site
of nine fish-kill events between
1986 and 1989, eight of which
were caused by a single pulp/
paper processing operation
located on this stream. In 1989,
the State took legal action
against the plant. As a result,
this plant has not been involved
in any other reported fish-kill
events. No other stream in the
region had more than two events
during the 10-year period.
The only other area in the region
where a large number of kills
was reported was Barnstable
County, Massachusetts, with ten
kills between 1980 and 1989.
However, most were due to
natural causes.
State Reporting
Programs
Each of the three North Atlantic
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 pro-
gram organization, investigative
procedures, and use of data are
summarized in Appendix B.
Maine has three agencies that
may be involved in the fish-kill
investigation process: the
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP); Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife;
and the Department of Marine
Resources. DEP is the only
organization that provided fish-
kill data to NOAA. The state
indicated that field visits are
likely to be made when an event
is reported (i.e., more than 75
percent of the time).
New Hampshire's Marine
Division, within the Department
of Fish and Game, has primary
responsibility for all fish kills
occurring in the state. They also
provided fish-kill data for this
report. They conduct field
investigations of fish-kill events
approximately 5 percent of the
time and are more likely to
respond to an event if large
numbers of fish are involved in
the kill.
Massachusetts has the largest
program of the three North
Atlantic states. The responsibil-
ity is shared between two
agencies: Division of Marine
Fisheries (marine- and coastal-
related kills), and the Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife (freshwa-
ter kills). Both provided fish-kill
data to NOAA. They also
reported that field visits are
standard procedure when an
event is reported (i.e., more than
75 percent of the time).
11
Middle Atlantic
Figure 10. Reported Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980- 1989
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Number of Events
■ 51 to 200
■ 26 to 50
■ 1 1 to 25
□ 1 to 1 0
No events reported
12
Middle Atlantic
The Middle Atlantic had the
second highest number of
events and number of fish
killed among regions. This
can be partially explained by
the climate and physical
features of the estuaries in
this region. The number of
events reported each year
was greatest during the
summer months. The great-
est number of events oc-
curred in Anne Arundel
County, Maryland. Low-
dissolved oxygen, disease,
and wastewater discharges
were the three leading direct
causes of fish kills.
The Data
Figure 1 1 . Number of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989
3,000
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Year
Assessment of the important
sources and causes of events in
this region is hampered by the
gaps in cause-related informa-
tion reported by each state. In
this region, 65 percent of the
reports included the number of
fish killed, 69 percent included
the direct cause of the event, 48
percent included the land-use
cause, and 45 percent included
the type of incident (Appendix
A). The Middle Atlantic had the
most incomplete reporting of the
number of fish killed and direct
causes among regions. Of the
states in this region,
Connecticut's reporting was the
most complete and New
Jersey's was the most incom-
plete.
Fish-Kill Events
Fish-kill events were reported in
1 13 of the 149 counties (includ-
ing the District of Columbia) in
the study area (5 counties in
Massachusetts, 5 in Rhode
Island, 8 in Connecticut, 20 in
New York, 20 in New Jersey, 7
in Pennsylvania, 3 in Delaware,
21 in Maryland including the
District of Columbia, and 60 in
Virginia) (Figure 10).
This region had the second
highest number of reported
events (1 ,033) and fish killed
(115,339,200). Maryland
accounted for over one-third of
the fish-kill events reported in
the region (455), followed by
New York (151); Delaware
(120); New Jersey (112);
Virginia (98); Connecticut (55);
Rhode Island (18); Pennsylvania
(16); and Massachusetts (8).
Maryland also had the highest
number of fish killed in the
region, with about 68 million or
59 percent of all reported fish
killed between 1980 and 1989.
Twenty events in Maryland
involved the death of over a
million fish. Eight of these
occurred in Anne Arundel County
and five in Wicomico County.
Trends. The number of events
reported from 1980 to 1989
shows an upward trend (Figure
11). From 1980 to 1984. the
largest number of fish-kill events
occurring in a single year was 81
in 1980. However, from 1985 to
1989, at least 100 events
occurred each year, with the
largest being 177 in 1988. A
seasonal pattern also exists in
Figure 1 2. Number of Events and Fish Killed by Month. 1980- 1989
300
200
100
400
J FMAMJJASOND
Month
J FMAMJJASOND
Month
13
Middle Atlantic
this region. Most events were
reported between June and
August (Figure 12). However.
the greatest numbers of fish killed
were reported in February.
August, and September. This
seasonal pattern exists across
the Nation, with the majority of
kills occurring during the summer
months.
Sources and Causes
A number of factors may account
for the relatively high number of
fish kills in the Middle Atlantic.
The shallow drowned-river
systems in the region and the
weak tides and basin geometry in
many of its estuaries result in
poorly mixed and aerated
waterbodies susceptible to
stratification and associated low-
dissolved oxygen levels. This
region also has the greatest
human population density and
the greatest percentage of urban
land among regions (NOAA,
1990).
Naturally occurring events
dominate the region, with the top
two direct causes reported as
low-dissolved oxygen levels and
disease (Figures 13 and 14). In
addition, a significant impact is
caused by routine wastewater
releases and/or spills occurring in
urban and industrial land-use
areas (Figure 15). These events
reflect kills related to inputs from
human activities.
In Massachusetts, five of the
eight reported events indicated
the direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause reported in two of the five
events. Three of the eight
reported events indicated the
land-use cause of the kill.
Industrial land use was the land-
use cause in two of the three
events. In only three of the
eight events was a land-use
cause reported along with a
direct cause.
In Rhode Island. 13 of the 18
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in nine of the 1 3 events.
Five of the 18 reported events
indicated the land-use cause of
the kill. Urban land use was the
land-use cause in two of the five
events. A direct cause was
associated with a land-use
cause in only five of the 1 8
reported events.
In Connecticut. 42 of the 55
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in nine of the 42 events.
Seventeen of the 55 reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Industrial land
use was the land-use cause in
six of the 17 events. In only 16
of the 55 reported events was a
direct cause linked with a
specific land use.
In New York, 116 of the 151
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 18 of the 1 16 events.
Ninety-three of the 151 reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Impoundments
were the land-use cause
identified in 33 of the 93 events.
In 86 of the 151 reported
events, a land-use cause was
reported along with a direct
cause.
In New Jersey. 64 of the 112
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Pesti-
cides were the direct cause in
nine of the 64 events. Thirty-
three of the 112 reported events
indicated the land-use cause of
Figure 13. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Type of
Incident'
Accidental release
others
Routine release
(11%)
Natural
(65%)
Figure 14. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Direct
Cause*
Wastewater
(6%)
Chlorine Low-dissolved
(6%) oxygen
(41%)
Disease
(12%
All others
(35%)
Figure 15. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Land- Use
Cause*
All others
Impoundment (5%)
(13%
Industrial
(14%)
Water-
related
(46%)
Urban
(22%)
'Does not include information from
unspecified events.
14
Middle Atlantic
the kill. Urban land use was the
land-use cause in 16 of the 33
events. A direct cause was
associated with a specific land
use in only 31 of the 112
reported events.
In Pennsylvania, ten of the 1 6
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Pesti-
cides were the direct cause in
three of the ten events. Thir-
teen of the 1 6 reported events
indicated the land-use cause of
the kill. Urban land use was the
land-use cause in six of the 13
events. In 10 of the 16 reported
events, a direct cause was
linked with a land-use cause.
In Delaware, 72 of the 120
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 36 of the 72 events.
Thirty-three of the 120 reported
events indicated a land-use
cause of the kill. Urban land
use was the land-use cause in
ten of the 33 events. In only 30
of the 1 20 reported events was
a land-use cause reported
along with a direct cause.
In Maryland, 333 of the 455
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 200 of the 333 events.
Of the 455 reported events, 249
indicated the land-use cause of
the kill. Water-related land use
was the land-use cause in 188
of the 249 events. A direct
cause was associated with a
specific land use in 241 of the
455 reported events.
In Virginia, 60 of the 98 re-
ported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 12 of the 60 events.
Fifty of the 98 reported events
indicated the land-use cause of
the kill. Industrial land use was
the land-use cause in 1 7 of the
50 events. In 49 of the 98
reported events, the land-use
cause was linked with the direct
cause.
Data tables containing the
number of events and fish killed
by county, state, region, year,
direct cause, land-use cause,
and incident are in Appendix A.
Hotspots and
Recurring Kills
Two counties in Maryland
reported the highest number of
fish-kill events for the Middle
Atlantic region. One hundred
and eighty-two events were
reported in Anne Arundel County
(accounting for 31% of all
reported fish kills in the region),
and 47 events occurred in
Baltimore County. Most of these
kills were attributed to low-
dissolved oxygen levels.
The waterbody having the most
events in this region was the
Magothy River Basin (43 events)
in Anne Arundel County, Mary-
land. This river has a history of
over-enrichment problems.
However, this situation was
further exacerbated in February
1 986 when the waste from a
break in a sewage line was
discharged into the river.
Twenty-four of the 43 reported
events for this river occurred
between May and October 1986.
The Hudson River/Raritan Bay
area, which traverses seven New
York counties and four New
Jersey counties, was another
waterbody for which numerous
events were reported. Nineteen
fish-kill events were reported for
this waterbody between 1980
and 1 989. However, most of the
records for these events did not
contain information on the cause
of the kills.
State Reporting
Programs
Each of the nine Middle Atlantic
states uses a different ap-
proach 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,
investigative procedures, and
use of data are summarized in
Appendix B.
Massachusetts (see the North
Atlantic region).
Rhode Island has three
different divisions within the
Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) that may
be involved in the fish-kill
investigation process. These
divisions are Enforcement
(handles initial response and
assessment). Fish and Wildlife
(responds only if kill occurs in a
pond or lake, or if only one fish
species is involved and less
than 100 fish are killed), and
Water Resources (handles
pollution-related kills and works
jointly with Fish and Wildlife on
large kills). The Water Re-
sources Division is the only
office that provided fish-kill data
for this report. However.
because each division should
provide full documentation to
each other for all fish kills, data
provided should be complete
for the state. Before May 1988.
the state had no formal fish kill
response policy. Now. field
visits are made when: a large
number of fish is involved (this
state's cutoff is 100 fish); the
public becomes concerned:
and or personnel are available
to respond.
15
Middle Atlantic
Connecticut has two divisions
(Water Management and
Fisheries) under the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protec-
tion (DEP) that respond to and
document fish kills. The Water
Management Division is
primarily concerned with kills
caused by industrial dis-
charges, while the Fisheries
Division responds to and
investigates all kills. Only
Fisheries provided fish-kill data
for this report (their response
included data from both divi-
sions). The Fisheries contact
indicated that field visits are
generally standard procedure
when an event is reported.
New York has five divisions
within its Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation (DEC)
that may be involved in the fish-
kill investigation process: Fish
and Wildlife: Law Enforcement;
Water; Hazardous Substances
Regulation: and Marine and
Coastal Resources. The Fish
and Wildlife Division provided
statewide fish-kill data for this
report. An on-site investigation
is made when a large number
of fish is involved in the kill and/
or when the public becomes
concerned.
New Jersey has two divisions
within the Department of
Environmental Protection that
respond to fish-kill events. The
Fish. Game, and Wildlife
Division handles inland kills,
while the Marine Fisheries
Division responds to coastal
water kills. However, only the
Fish. Game, and Wildlife
regional offices provided fish-kill
data for this report. Field visits
are likely to be made when a
large number of fish is involved
or when the public becomes
concerned.
Pennsylvania's fish kill program
consists of three agencies: the
Department of Environmental
Resources' Bureau of Water
Quality; the Fish Commission's
Bureau of Law Enforcement; and
the Emergency Management
Agency. Due to a staff shortage
at the Fish Commission, fish-kill
data for this report were obtained
from the EPA data base. Field
visits to fish-kill sites are made
the majority of the time (i.e.,
more than 75 percent of the
time).
Delaware's program is con-
ducted by the Department of
Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control's (DNREC)
Division of Fish and Wildlife. The
Fish and Wildlife Division pro-
vided fish-kill data for this report.
It reports that field visits are
standard procedure and they
respond more than 75 percent of
the time.
Maryland's program is con-
ducted by the Water Quality
Monitoring Division, Department
of the Environment. The Water
Quality Monitoring Division
provided fish-kill data for this
report. Field visits are likely to
be made when a large number of
fish is involved in a kill or when
the public becomes concerned.
Virginia has two agencies that
may be involved in the fish-kill
investigation process: the Water
Control Board (WCB) and the
Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries. The WCB provided
fish-kill data for this report. Field
visits are likely to be made when
a large number of fish is involved
in the kill, the public becomes
concerned, and/or personnel are
available to respond.
16
South Atlantic
Figure 1 6. Reported Fish-Kill Events by County. 1980-1989
Number of Events
■ 91 to 400
■ 41 to 90
■ 1 1 to 40
□ 1 to 1 0
□ No events reported
18
South Atlantic
The South Atlantic had the
highest number of events and
the third highest number of
fish killed among regions.
This can be partially ex-
plained by the climate and
physical features of the
estuaries in this region. The
number of events reported
each year was greatest during
the summer months. The
greatest number of events
occurred in Palm Beach
County, Florida. Low-dis-
solved oxygen, eutrophica-
tion, and pesticides were the
three leading direct causes of
fish kills.
The Data
In this region, 96 percent of the
reports included the number of
fish killed, 84 percent included
the direct cause of the event, 26
percent included the land-use
cause, and 25 percent included
the type of incident (Appendix
A). The South Atlantic had the
most complete reporting of the
direct cause and number of fish
killed among regions. Of the
states in this region, Florida's
reporting was the most com-
plete and Georgia's was the
most incomplete.
Fish-Kill Events
Fish-kill events were reported in
79 of the 1 25 counties in the
study area (4 in Virginia, 44 in
North Carolina, 24 in South
Carolina, 29 in Georgia, and 24
in Florida) (Figure 16).
This region had the highest
number of reported events
(1,450) and third highest
number of fish killed
(95,291,300). Florida ac-
counted for almost three quar-
ters of the fish-kill events
reported in the region with
Figure 1 7. Number of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989
6,000
1 ,042, followed by South Caro-
lina (191); North Carolina (153);
Georgia (33); and Virginia (31).
Florida also had the highest
number of fish killed in the
region, with over 64 million or 67
percent of all reported fish killed
between 1980 and 1989. Eight
events occurred in Florida in
which over a million fish were
killed. Four of these occurred in
Marion County and two in
Orange County. (For more
information on Florida, see inset
on page 21).
Trends. The number of events
reported from 1 980 to 1 989
shows an upward trend (Figure
17). From 1980 to 1984. the
largest number of fish-kill events
occurring in a single year was
133 in 1981. However, from
1985 to 1989. at least 150
events occurred each year, with
the largest being 243 in 1986.
An apparent seasonal pattern
also exists in this region. The
majority of events and the
greatest number of fish killed
were reported between June and
August (Figure 18). This sea-
sonal pattern exists across the
Nation, with the majority of kills
occurring during the summer
months.
Figure 1 8. Number of Events and Fish Killed by Month. 1980-1989
300
400
o 100
* 50
-i — i — r- 1 — i — i — ; — i — i — i — r
J FMAMJ J ASOND
Month
J FMAMJJASOND
Month
19
South Atlantic
Sources and Causes
A number of factors may
account for the relatively high
number of fish kills observed in
the South Atlantic. The shallow
drowned-river systems in the
region and the weak tides and
basin geometry in many of its
estuaries result in poorly mixed
and aerated waterbodies
susceptible to stratification and
associated low-dissolved
oxygen levels. This region also
has the second largest total
estuarine drainage area, the
highest intensity of pesticide
application, and the second
highest application rate of
nutrients among regions
(NOAA, 1990).
Kills associated with runoff from
urban and agricultural land use
dominate the region, with the
top two direct causes reported
as low-dissolved oxygen levels
and eutrophication (Figures 19,
20 and 21). In addition, natu-
rally occurring events had a
significant impact on the
waterbodies in this region
(Figure 19).
In Virginia, 21 of the 31 re-
ported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause reported in eight of the
21 events. Fifteen of the 31
reported events indicated the
land-use cause of the kill.
Water-related land use was the
land-use cause in eight of the
15 events. In 15 of the 31
reported events, a land-use
cause was reported along with
a direct cause.
In North Carolina, 108 of the
153 reported events indicated
the direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 38 of the 108 events.
Seventy-nine of the 153 reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Water-related
land use was the land-use cause
in 42 of the 79 events. In 78 of
the 153 reported events, a direct
cause was associated with a
land-use cause.
In South Carolina, 138 of the
191 reported events indicated
the direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 60 of the 138 events.
Nineteen of the 191 reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Urban land use
was the land-use cause in 12 of
the 19 events. In only 17 of the
191 reported events was a direct
cause linked with a specific land-
use cause.
In Georgia, 27 of the 33 re-
ported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Waste-
water discharge was the direct
cause in six of the 27 events.
Twenty-two of the 33 reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Urban land use
was the land-use cause identi-
fied in 1 1 of the 22 events. In 22
of the 33 reported events, a
land-use cause was reported
along with a direct cause.
In Florida, 929 of the 1 ,042
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 728 of the 929 events.
Two hundred and thirty-nine of
the 1 ,042 reported events
indicated the land-use cause of
the kill. Urban land use was the
land-use cause in 158 of the 239
events. In only 228 of the 1 ,042
reported events was a direct
cause associated with a specific
land-use cause.
Data tables containing the
number of events and fish killed
by county, state, region, year,
Figure 19. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Type of
Incident*
Routine
Accidental
release
release
Al, <8*U
r (5%)
others ^d j
(9%)^ "
Runoff
Natural v (46%)
(32%)
Figure 20. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Direct
Cause*
Pesticides
Eutro- (5%) | Temperature
phication ^^^- (3%)
(io%;
All others
(13%) Low-dissolved
oxygen
(69%)
Figure 21 . Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Land- Use
Cause*
Impoundment
(11%)
All others
(7%:
Agri- Urban
cultural Water- (50%)
(12%) related
(20%)
'Does not include information from
unspecified events.
20
South Atlantic
direct cause, land-use cause,
and incident are in Appendix A.
Hotspots and
Recurring Kills
Two counties in Florida reported
the highest number of fish-kill
events for the South Atlantic
region. Three hundred and
eighty-three events were
reported in Palm Beach County
(accounting for 37% of all
reported fish kills in the region),
and 277 events occurred in
Broward County. Most of these
kills were attributed to low-
dissolved oxygen levels.
The St. Johns River Basin which
traverses six Florida counties
(Brevard, Clay, Duval, Marion,
Seminole, and Volusia) was the
waterbody for which the most
events (29) were reported in this
region. This river has a history
of over-enrichment problems.
The river also receives dis-
charges of irrigation water from
surrounding agricultural farms
(citrus and sugarcane fields).
Over half of the events were
caused by low-dissolved oxygen
conditions. The Pamlico River,
which flows through three North
Carolina counties (Beaufort,
Hyde, and Pamlico), was
another waterbody for which
numerous events were reported.
Twenty-three fish-kill events
were reported for this waterbody
between 1981 and 1989. The
majority of the reports cited
some type of naturally occurring
condition as the direct cause
such as low-dissolved oxygen
levels, disease, bacteria,
fungus, and/or changes in
salinity.
Florida and North Carolina have
set up special programs to
monitor these two waterbodies
because these coastal waters
were under severe environ-
mental stress.
Florida - A Special Case
Florida ranks first in number of
events (1 ,292) and number of fish
killed (over 77 million) among
states. Several reasons help to
explain this. First, the entire state
(54,153 sq. mi.) is defined as
"coastal" (Bureau of Census,
1988). The state with the second
largest area is California (39,575
sq. mi.) (NOAA, 1987).
Second, Florida has a large
number of artificial canals, lakes,
and impoundments located in and
around residential subdivisions.
These waters are prone to
eutrophication problems. Kills
occurring in them are easily
observed and frequently reported
because of their proximity to the
surrounding communities.
Third, the state's high year-round
temperatures and extremely high
summer temperatures greatly
contribute to kills associated with
low-dissolved oxygen levels and
eutrophication.
State Reporting
Programs
Each of the five South Atlantic
states uses a different ap-
proach 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,
investigative procedures, and
use of data are summarized in
Appendix B.
Virginia (see the Middle
Atlantic region).
North Carolina's fish-kill
program is primarily covered by
three agencies: the Depart-
ment of Environment. Health,
and Natural Resources (re-
sponds to all kills to help
determine cause); the Depart-
ment of Crime Control and
Public Safety (involved with
emergency management and
pollution testing); and the
Wildlife Commission (deals with
surveying kill sites to determine
number and species of fish
killed, and their economic
value). In addition, through a
cooperative effort between two
divisions (Environmental
Management and Marine
Fisheries) in the Department of
Environment Health and
Natural Resources, the Pamlico
Estuarine Response Team
(PERT) was formed in 1988 to
respond to the increasing
number of fish-kill events in the
Pamilco River/Sound. The
Department of Environment.
Health, and Natural Resources'
Division of Environmental
Management provided fish-kill
data for this report. It reported
that field visits are standard
procedure, and they respond
more than 75 percent of the
time.
South Carolina's fish-kill
program is run by two agen-
cies: the Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management
in South Carolina's Department
of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC): and the
Department of Wildlife and
Marine Resources. The
Department of Wildlife and
Marine Resources is primarily
concerned with kills occurring
in public waters, while the
SCDHEC responds and
investigates all kills. Only
SCDHEC provided fish-kill data
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
Gulf of Mexico
Figure 22. Reported Fish-Kill Events by County. 1980-1989
24
Gulf of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico had the
third highest number of
events and the highest
number of fish killed among
regions. This can be partially
explained by the climate and
physical features of the
estuaries in this region. The
number of events reported
each year was greatest during
the summer months. The
greatest number of events
occurred in Galveston
County, Texas. Low-
dissolved oxygen, storm
events, and wastewater
discharges were the three
leading direct causes of fish
kills.
The Data
Figure 23. Number of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989
100
1 1 .000
"D
t:
o
Q.
Q)
CE
In this region, 75 percent of the
reports included the number of
fish killed, 84 percent included
the direct cause of the event, 54
percent included the land-use
cause, and 50 percent included
the type of incident (Appendix
A). The Gulf of Mexico had the
fourth most complete reporting
of the direct cause and number
of fish killed among regions. Of
the states in this region,
Alabama's reporting was the
most complete and Louisiana's
was the most incomplete.
Fish-Kill Events
Fish-kill events were reported in
100 of the 164 counties in the
study area (4 counties in
Georgia, 43 in Florida, 14 in
Alabama, 17 in Mississippi, 39
in Louisiana, and 47 in Texas)
(Figure 22).
This region had the third highest
number of reported events (830)
and the highest number of fish
killed (188,161,000). Texas
accounted for almost half of the
fish-kill events reported in the
region (355), followed by Florida
(250); Louisiana (172); Alabama
(44); Mississippi (7); and Georgia
(2).
Texas also had the highest
number of fish killed in the
region, with approximately
1 59 million or 85 percent of all
reported fish killed between 1980
and 1989. Twenty-one events in
Texas involved the death of over
a million fish. Eight of these
occurred in Galveston County
and five in Chambers County.
Trends. The number of events
reported from 1980 to 1989 does
not show any trend (Figure 23).
However, an apparent seasonal
pattern exists in this region.
Most events were reported
during May, August, and
September (Figure 24). How-
ever, the greatest numbers of
fish killed were reported in June.
August, and September (Figure
24). This seasonal pattern
exists across the Nation, with
the majority of kills occurring
during the summer months.
Sources and Causes
A number of factors may
account for the relatively high
number of events and fish killed
Figure 24. Number of Events and Fish Killed by Month, 1980- 1989
1.000
100
0 -
JFMAMJJASOND
Month
FMAMJ J ASOND
Month
25
Gulf of Mexico
in the Gulf of Mexico. This
region has the highest percent-
age of agricultural land, applica-
tion of fertilizers and pesticides,
industrial point sources, and
municipal wastewater treatment
plants among regions (NOAA.
1990). Estuaries in this region
have an average depth of eight
feet, the shallowest among
regions, which restricts their
ability to assimilate the loadings
of pollutants mentioned above
(NOAA. 1990). These factors, in
addition to the hot/humid climate,
contribute to waterbodies that
are frequently nutrient-enriched
and thermally stressed. The
result is frequent low-dissolved
oxygen levels, particularly in the
summer, that can lead to fish
kills.
Naturally occurring events
dominate the region, with the top
two direct causes reported as
low-dissolved oxygen levels and
wastewater (Figures 25 and 26).
In addition, a significant impact is
caused by runoff from storm
events in urban areas and/or by
routine and accidental releases
from industrial land uses (Figure
27). These events reflect kills
related to impacts from human
activities.
In Florida. 219 of the 250
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause reported in 1 1 6 of the 21 9
events. Of the 250 reported
events. 109 indicated the land-
use cause of the kill. Urban land
use was the land-use cause in
56 of the 109 events. In only 106
of the 250 events was a land-use
cause reported along with a
direct cause.
In Georgia one of the two
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Waste-
water was the direct cause in this
event. Both of the reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Industrial and
urban land use were the land-
use causes for these events. A
direct cause was associated
with a land-use cause in one of
the two reported events.
In Alabama, 40 of the 44
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 23 of the 40 events.
Sixteen of the 44 reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Urban land
use was the land-use cause in
ten of the 16 events. In only 16
of the 44 reported events was a
direct cause linked with a
specific land-use cause.
In Mississippi, six of the seven
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. A
change in salinity was the direct
cause in three of the six events.
Five of the seven reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Water-related
land use was the land-use
cause identified in all five of the
events. In five of the seven
reported events, a land-use
cause was reported along with a
direct cause.
In Louisiana, 146 of the 172
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 63 of the 146 events.
Of the 1 72 reported events, 1 08
indicated the land-use cause of
the kill. Impoundments were
the land-use cause in 36 of the
108 events. A direct cause was
associated with a specific land-
use cause in 1 07 of the 1 72
reported events.
In Texas. 291 of the 355
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
Figure 25. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Type of
Incident'
Accidental
release
Routine (12%)
release
(14%
Natural
\(37%)
All others
(18%)
Runoff
(19%)
Figure 26. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Direct
Cause*
Temperature
Storm (6%) Low-dissolved
event oxygen
(7%) ^^M (46%)
/4^
Waste
water
(10%) All others
(31%)
Figure 27. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Land- Use
Cause*
Impoundment
(15%
r
All others
Industrial
(22%
Urban
(33%)
'Does not include information from
unspecified events.
26
Gulf of Mexico
dissolved oxygen was the direct
cause in 1 19 ot the 291 events.
Of the 355 reported events, 208
indicated the land-use cause of
the kill. Water-related land use
was the land-use cause in 67 of
the 208 events. A direct cause
was associated with a specific
land-use cause in 201 of the
355 reported events.
Data tables containing the
number of events and fish killed
by county, state, region, year,
direct cause, land-use cause,
and incident are in Appendix A.
Hotspots and
Recurring Kills
Two counties in Texas reported
the highest number of fish-kill
events for the Gulf of Mexico
region: Galveston County (72)
and Harris County (66).
Galveston County had the
highest number of fish killed
(almost 106 million) of all the
counties in the entire study
area. Half of these kills were
attributed to low-dissolved
oxygen levels that were not
associated with a land-use
cause.
Galveston Bay was the
waterbody for which the most
events (28) were reported in
this region. Large portions of
Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston,
Harris, and Liberty counties are
in the Galveston Bay estuarine
drainage area (EDA). Taken
together, these counties contain
the highest concentration of
point sources in the Nation's
coastal area. Fifteen percent of
all industrial point sources and
municipal wastewater treatment
plants in the study area are
located in the Galveston Bay
EDA. Seventeen of the 28 kills
in the Galveston Bay EDA were
related to low-dissolved oxygen
and temperature. Five of the 17
events were caused by releases
of cooling water from power
plants.
The only other area in the region
where a large number of kills
was reported was Collier
County in Florida, with 49 events
between 1980 and 1989. Most
of these kills were due to low-
dissolved oxygen and/or exces-
sive nutrient loadings.
State Reporting
Programs
Each of the six Gulf of Mexico
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, investigative
procedures, and use of data are
summarized in Appendix B.
Florida (see the South Atlantic
region).
Georgia (see the South Atlantic
region).
Alabama has two agencies that
may be involved in the fish-kill
investigation process: the
Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) and the
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources. The DEM
provided the fish-kill data for this
report. Field visits to fish-kill
sites are made more than 75
percent of the time.
Mississippi has two agencies
that may be involved in the fish-
kill investigation process: the
Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ); and the Depart-
ment of Wildlife, Fisheries and
Parks. The two bureaus within
DEQ are Pollution Control
(responsible for all state waters)
and Marine Resources (may
investigate some coastal kills).
The Bureau of Pollution Control
is the office that provided the
fish-kill data for this report. Field
visits to fish-kill sites are made
more than 75 percent of the
time.
Louisiana's fish-kill program is
conducted by three agencies:
the Department of Environmen-
tal Quality (DEQ); the Depart-
ment of Wildlife and Fisheries
(DWF); and the Department of
Agriculture. The DWF investi-
gates kills caused by naturally
occurring fish diseases, while
the DEQ responds to and
investigates all kills. DEQ
provided the fish-kill data for this
report. The DEQ contact
indicated that field visits are
generally made when an event
is reported.
Texas has two different agen-
cies that respond to and docu-
ment fish kills: the Texas Park
and Wildlife Department
(TPWD) and the Texas Water
Commission (TWC). The TWC
has the lead on water-quality
problems relating to discharges,
while the TPWD responds to.
investigates, and is responsible
for recovering damages to fish
and wildlife for all kills. The
TPWD provided statewide fish-
kill data for this report. Field
visits are likely to be made
when: a large number of fish is
involved in a kill; the public
becomes concerned: personnel
are available to respond: a
responsible party can be identi-
fied: and/or the kill may be
related to a particular cause or
contaminant.
27
Pacific
Figure 28. Reported Fish-Kill Events by County. 1980-1989
Number of Events
■ 21 to 40
■ 1 1 to 20
■ 6 to 1 0
□ 1 to 5
□ No events reported
28
Pacific
The Pacific had the fourth
highest number of events and
number of fish killed among
regions. This can be partially
explained by the climate and
physical features of the
estuaries in this region. The
number of events reported
each year was greatest
during the summer months.
The greatest number of
events occurred in King
County, Washington. Low-
dissolved oxygen, pesticides,
and animal wastes were the
three leading direct causes of
fish kills.
The Data
In this region, 88 percent of the
reports included the number of
fish killed, 73 percent included
the direct cause of the event, 47
percent included the land-use
cause, and 39 percent included
the type of incident (Appendix
A). The Pacific had the third
most complete reporting of the
direct cause and number of fish
killed among regions. Of the
states in this region, California's
reporting was the most com-
plete and Washington's was the
most incomplete.
Fish-Kill Events
Fish-kill events were reported in
47 of the 64 counties in the
study area (29 counties in
California, 16 in Oregon, and 19
in Washington) (Figure 28).
This region had the fourth
highest number of reported
events (293) and fish killed
(4,281,100). California ac-
counted for over half of the fish-
kill events reported in the region
with 148, followed by Washing-
ton (105); and Oregon (40).
Washington had the highest
number of fish killed in the
Figure 29. Number of Events and Fish Killed, 1980-1989
100
90
80
70
9 60
LU
50
8- 4°
DC
30-
20-
10
3.500
700
600 o
500 *.
"D
400 =
300 £
200
100
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Year
region, with over 3.3 million or
77 percent of all reported fish
killed between 1980 and 1989.
Seventy-nine percent of these
fish were killed in a single
event that occurred in August
1981 in Cultus Bay, located in
Island County. The event
lasted for one day and was
reported as a natural event that
occurred in a poorly designed
marina. The direct cause cited
was low-dissolved oxygen.
Trends. The number of events
reported from 1 980 to 1 989
shows a general downward
trend (Figure 29). From 1980
to 1982, at least 37 events
occurred each year, with the
largest being 49 in 1 981 .
However, from 1983 to 1989.
no more than 28 fish-kill events
occurred in a single year
(except in 1987 when 38
events were reported). In
addition, an apparent seasonal
pattern also exists in this
region. Most events were
reported between April and
September (Figure 30). How-
ever, the greatest numbers of
fish killed were reported in
January, August, and Septem-
ber. A seasonal pattern exists
across the Nation, with the
majority of kills occurring
during the summer months.
Figure 30. Number of Events and Fish Killed by Month. 1980-1989
300
"i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r
J FMAMJ J ASOND
Month
J FMAMJJASOND
Month
29
Pacific
Sources and Causes
The Pacific region spans the
widest geographic and climatic
range of the five regions. In
California, from San Francisco
Bay south, the weather is
generally warm and portions of
the coast are densely popu-
lated. In this area, the preva-
lent direct cause of kills is low-
dissolved oxygen and pesti-
cides which occur in the
agricultural drainage canals
and freshwater reservoirs in
the state. In contrast. Oregon
and Washington tend to have
more problems with spills and
routine releases (e.g., chemi-
cals from industrial plants in
Oregon and animal wastes
from dairy farms in Washing-
ton).
The top two direct causes of
fish kills reported for the entire
region were low-dissolved
oxygen levels and pesticides
(Figure 32). Kills related to
impacts from human activities
dominate the region, such as
spills and routine or accidental
releases occurring in agricul-
tural, urban, and industrial
land-use areas (Figures 31
and 33). In addition, almost a
quarter of the events in the
region is related to naturally
occurring events (Figure 31).
In California, 1 10 of the 148
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Low-
dissolved oxygen was the
direct cause reported in 25 of
the 110 events. Forty-four of
the 148 reported events
indicated the land-use cause
of the kill. Impoundments
were the land-use cause in 13
of the 44 events. In only 44 of
the 148 events was a land-use
cause reported along with a
direct cause.
In Oregon, 29 of the 40 re-
ported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. An
assortment of chemicals/metals
(i.e., organic chemicals, inor-
ganic chemicals/metals, and
mixed chemicals) was the direct
cause in 13 of the 29 events.
Twenty-four of the 40 reported
events indicated the land-use
cause of the kill. Industrial land
use was the land-use cause in
13 of the 24 events. A direct
cause was associated with a
land-use cause in 22 of the 40
reported events.
In Washington, 76 of the 105
reported events indicated the
direct cause of the kill. Animal
waste was the direct cause in
21 of the 76 events. Sixty-nine
of the 1 05 reported events
indicated the land-use cause of
the kill. Agricultural land use
was the land-use cause in 26 of
the 69 events. In 64 of the 1 05
reported events, a direct cause
was linked with a specific land-
use cause.
Data tables containing the
number of events and fish killed
by county, state, region, year,
direct cause, land-use cause,
and incident are in Appendix A.
Hotspots and
Recurring Kills
King County (39 events) in
Washington and San Joaquin
County (27 events) in California
reported the highest number of
fish-kill events in the region.
The kills in King County were
attributed to a variety of direct
causes and land-use causes
with no single type of event
being dominant. However, the
most frequently cited direct
cause was chlorine that had
been routinely released from an
urban land-use area (e.g., water
Figure 31 . Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Type of
Incident*
Accidental
release
All M1"/<
others
(20%).
Natural
(21%)
Routine
release
(23%)
Figure 32. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Direct
Cause *
Chlorine
Animal (11%)
Waste
(12%
All others
(49%)
Pesticides
(13%) Low-dissolved
oxygen
(15%)
Figure 33. Number of Fish-Kill
Events by Land- Use
Cause *
r- All others
Impoundment | (11%)
(17%
L
Agriculture
(30%)
Industrial
(19%)
Urban
(23%)
'Does not include information from
unspecified events.
30
Pacific
treatment facility, construction
site, water pipeline, and
chlorinated wells). In contrast,
the majority of the kills in San
Joaquin County did not have a
direct cause or an associated
land-use cause. Eight of the 27
events reported low-dissolved
oxygen levels as the direct
cause of the event.
Johnson Creek, located in
Oregon's Clackamas and
Multnomah counties, was the
waterbody for which the most
events (9) were reported in this
region. This creek is a tributary
of the Willamette River.
Twenty-five percent of all the
fish killed in Oregon were killed
in this creek. The majority of
the events cited the direct
cause as a mixture of chemi-
cals from unspecified sources.
Whatcom Creek in Whatcom
County, Washington, was
another waterbody for which
numerous events (5) were
reported between 1981 and
1 989. Most of the records for
these events did not contain
information on the associated
land-use cause. However,
pesticides were cited as the
direct cause in three of the
events.
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.
California has two divisions
(Marine Resources and Inland
Fisheries) under the Department
of Fish and Game (DFG) that
investigate and document fish
kills. DFG's Environmental
Services Division (the central
clearinghouse for California's
fish-kill records) provided fish-kill
data for this report. The Envi-
ronmental Services contact
indicated that field visits are
generally standard procedure
when an event is reported.
Oregon has two agencies that
may be involved in the fish-kill
investigation process: the
Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) and the Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife (DFW).
The DEQ is specifically inter-
ested in kills caused by pollu-
tion, while the DFW responds to
all kills. Both agencies provided
fish-kill data for this report. Field
visits are more likely to be made
when a large number of fish is
involved in a kill.
Washington's program is
conducted by the Department of
Ecology. It provided fish-kill
data for this project and reported
that field visits to fish-kill sites
are made more than 75 percent
of the time.
31
Concluding Comments
Fish-kill reporting programs
provide an incomplete picture
of the Nation's fish-kill prob-
lems. Even so. they indicate
that fish kills have not been a
pervasive problem in the
Nation's estuarine and coastal
areas. Taken together, the
data generated by these State
and local programs also
provide a basis for quantifying
and understanding certain
aspects of fish kills. Several
conclusions regarding the
uses and limitations of these
data are important to note.
Compiling State Data is
Difficult. Although all 22 coastal
states maintain some form of
fish-kill reporting program, data
compilation is difficult. Reporting
responsibilities within most
states are often shared by
several agencies. Consequently,
data are in varied formats and
gaps occur in some states as a
result of lapses in State pro-
grams or data lost during the
transfer of program responsibili-
ties. The analysis problem is
further compounded because no
Federal agency or national
organization maintains a com-
prehensive and up-to-date data
base for the Nation.
Data Content Varies Among
States. There is a wide variation
in organization, level of activity,
priorities, investigative proce-
dures, documentation require-
ments, and reporting formats
among states. As a result, the
data content of the information
characterizing fish kills varies
from state to state. This lack of
consistency in data content
makes it difficult to reconcile
differences in state-to-state and
regional comparisons.
Little Evidence of Impacts on
Fish Populations. Fish kills in
coastal waters do not appear to
occur with sufficient frequency or
involve enough fish to pose a
significant threat to fish popula-
tions in most areas. None of the
State programs surveyed
indicated population impacts
resulting from fish kills. Even if
the estimates reported are
doubled to account for incom-
plete reporting, the number of
fish killed is still relatively small
compared to estimates of
existing populations in most
areas.
Assessing Trends is Difficult.
Although the number of events in
coastal areas has increased over
the past decade, the number of
fish killed has decreased. The
cause of these apparent trends
is not clear. The rise in the
number of events may indicate a
decline in water quality during
this period, or reflect an in-
creased emphasis on reporting.
Because the data are incomplete
and lack uniformity, conclusive
statements at the national or
regional level cannot be made.
However, a recurring seasonal
pattern appears in all states,
indicating most events take place
during the summer, from May to
September.
Hotspots Can Sometimes be
Targeted. Fish-kill data are
most frequently used by State
agencies to identify areas
experiencing acute environmen-
tal stress. Ideally, the agency
uses the data to quickly deter-
mine the source of the stress
and correct the problem. How-
ever, repeat kills may sometimes
occur before action is taken.
The fish kills in Mattanawcook
Stream in Maine are a good
example of how fish-kill data
were used to identify and correct
a discharge problem from a
single source (page 1 1). In other
cases, fish-kill events have lead
to a more in-depth investigation
of water-quality problems. The
Pamlico Estuarine Response
Team (PERT), formed in North
Carolina, is an example of how
fish-kill data have been used to
target an area experiencing
ongoing water-quality problems
(page 21).
Low-Dissolved Oxygen
Causes Most Kills. Low-
dissolved oxygen was reported
as the direct cause of a kill in 41
percent of the cases reporting
cause. Although spills or acci-
dental releases from point
sources still occur, the majority
of human-induced kills is now
attributed to runoff from various
nonpoint sources. Conversa-
tions with State fish-kill officials
indicate that kills caused by
pollutants from point sources
(industries and wastewater
treatment plants) have been
reduced in the last 10 to15 years
due to improvements in treat-
ment. They also noted a de-
crease in kills associated with
compounds such as DDT and
other chlorinated pesticides that
are now used less frequently or
are banned entirely.
32
References
Bureau of the Census. 1 988.
County and City Data Book
(1988). U.S. Department of
Commerce. Washington. D.C.
p. 68
Environmental Law Institute.
1 988. Clean Water Deskbook.
Washington. DC. p. 77
Hinga. K.R.. D.W. Stanley. C.J.
Klein. D.T. Lucid, and M.J.
Katz (eds). 1991. The Na-
tional Estuarine Eutrophication
Project: Workshop Proceed-
ings. Rockville. MD: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Univer-
sity of Rhode Island Graduate
School of Oceanography. 41
PP-
NOAA. 1987. National
Estuarine Inventory: Data
Atlas. Volume 2: Land- Use
Characteristics. Rockville, MD:
National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration. 40 pp.
NOAA. 1990. Estuaries of the
United States: Vital Statistics
of a National Resource Base.
Strategic Assessment Branch,
Rockville, MD. 79 pp.
Pait. A. S.. A. DeSouza, and
D.R.G Farrow. 1991. Agricul-
tural Pesticides in Coastal
Areas: A National Summary.
Rockville. MD: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. (In prepara-
tion)
Personal
Communications
Federal Agencies
Farrow. D.: Strategic Environ-
mental Assessments Division,
National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration.
Rockville. MD (p. 1. para 7)
Harllee. N.: Monitoring and Data
Support Division: Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits: U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency; Washington, D.C. (see
Acknowledgements and EPA
Fish-Kill Data Base, p. 2)
State Agencies
Alabama
Williford, E. J.; Alabama's
Department of Environmental
Management; Montgomery, AL.
(P- 27)
California
Fransen, H.R.; Environmental
Services Division; California's
Department of Fish and Game;
Rancho Cordova, CA. (p. 31)
Connecticut
Jacobson, R. A.; Water Man-
agement and Fisheries Division;
Connecticut's Department of
Environmental Protection;
Hartford, CT. (p. 16)
Delaware
Miller, R. W.; Division of Fish
and Wildlife; Delaware's Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control; Dover,
DE. (p. 16)
Florida
Champeau, T.; South Region,
Florida's Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission; Lakeland, FL.
(p. 22)
Krummrich. J.; Northeast
Region, Florida's Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission;
Lake City. FL. (p. 22)
McKinney, S.; Central Region,
Florida's Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission; Ocala, FL.
(p. 22)
Morton, R. D.; Bioenvironmental
Services Division, Duval
County; Jacksonville, FL. (p.
22)
Olsen, L. A.; Florida's Depart-
ment of Environmental Regula-
tion; Tallahassee, FL. (p. 22)
Romeis, G.; South District
Office, Florida's Department of
Environmental Regulation; Fort
Myer, FL. (p. 22)
Ross, Landon; Florida's Depart-
ment of Environmental Regula-
tion; Tallahassee, FL. (see Hot-
Spots and Recurring Kills, p. 22)
Walton, A. S.; South District
Office; Florida's Department of
Environmental Regulation;
Punta Gorda, FL. (p. 22)
Young, N.; Northwest Region,
Florida's Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission; DeFuniak
Springs, FL. (p. 22)
Georgia
Coomer, C. Jr.; Fisheries
Section; Game and Fish Divi-
sion; Georgia's Department of
Natural Resources; Atlanta, GA.
(p. 22)
Shipman, S.; Coastal Re-
sources Division; Georgia's
Department of Natural Re-
sources; Brunswick, GA. (p. 22)
Louisiana
Albritton, R.; Louisiana's
Department of Environmental
Quality; Baton Rogue, LA. (p.
27)
34
References
Maine
Courtmanch, D.; Maine's Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection;
Augusta, ME. (see Maine, and
Hot-Spots and Recurring Kills, p.
11)
Maryland
Poukish, C; Water Quality
Monitoring Division; Maryland's
Department of the Environment;
Annapolis, MD. (p. 16)
Massachusetts
Fiske, J. D.; Division of Marine
Fisheries; Massachusetts' Depart-
ment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Environmental Law Enforcement;
Sandwich, MA. (p. 11)
Keller, R.; Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife; Massachusetts'
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife,
and Environmental Law Enforce-
ment; Westboro, MA. (p. 11)
Mississippi
Rodgers, S.; Bureau of Pollution
Control; Mississippi's Department
of Environmental Quality; Pearl,
MS. (p. 27)
New Hampshire
Ingham, W. Jr.; New Hampshire's
Department of Fish and Game;
Durham, NH. (p. 11)
Nelson, J.; New Hampshire's
Department of Fish and Game;
Durham, NH. (p. 11)
New Jersey
Murza, S.; Bureau of Law En-
forcement; Fish, Game, and
Wildlife Division; New Jersey's
Department of Environmental
Protection; Trenton, NJ. (p. 16)
Winkel, R.; Bureau of Law
Enforcement; Fish, Game, and
Wildlife Division; New Jersey's
Department of Environmental
Protection; Trenton, NJ. (p.
16)
New York
Spodaryk, J.; New York's
Department of Environmental
Conservation; Gloversville, NY.
(p. 16)
North Carolina
Wiggins, K.; Division of Envi-
ronmental Management; North
Carolina's Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources; Raleigh,
NC. (p. 21)
Oregon
Robart, G.; Oregon's Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife;
Portland, OR. (p. 31)
Pennsylvania
Manhart, E. W.; Bureau of Law
Enforcement; Pennsylvania's
Fish Commission; Harrisburg,
PA. (p. 16)
Rhode Island
Richardson, R. E.; Water
Resources Division; Rhode
Island's Department of Envi-
ronmental Management;
Providence, Rl. (p. 15)
South Carolina
Adams, C; Bureau of Solid
and Hazardous Waste Man-
agement; South Carolina's
Department of Health and
Environmental Control; Colum-
bia, SC. (p. 21)
Kinney, R.; Waste Assessment
and Emergency Response;
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management: South
Carolina's Department of Health
and Environmental Control:
Columbia, SC. (p. 21)
Texas
Palafox, D.; Resource Protection
Division; Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department; Austin, TX.
(p. 27)
Palma, V.; Resource Protection
Division; Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department; Austin. TX.
(P- 27)
Virginia
Sykes, M.A.; Pollution Remedia-
tion Program; Virginia Water
Control Board; Richmond. VA.
(p. 16)
Washington
LeVander, L.; Northwest Re-
gional Office; Washington's
Department of Ecology:
Redmond, WA. (p. 31)
Kittle, L; Central Office; Wash-
ington's Department of Ecology:
Olympia. WA. (p. 31)
35
Appendix A - North Atlantic
New
Hampshire
Maine
Massachusetts
Coastal County Number
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
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
3
Cumberland
1
2
100
100
0
4
Franklin
1
1
100
100
0
5
Hancock
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
6
Kennebec
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
7
Knox
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
8
Lincoln
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
9
Oxford
2
1,005
50
100
0
10
Penobscot
13
31
92
100
0
11
Piscataquis
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
12
Sagadahoc
3
460
100
100
0
13
Somerset
2
4
100
100
0
14 Waldo
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
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
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
19 Coos
WD
WD
WD
wo
WD
20
Grafton
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
21
Hillsborough
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
22
Merrimack
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
23
Rockingham
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
24
Strafford
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
Subtotal
1
1
100
100
0
Massachusetts
25
Barnstable
10
39,207
90
70
1
26
Essex
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
27
Middlesex
2
4
100
50
0
28
Norfolk
3
23
100
67
0
29
Plymouth
3
34
100
67
0
30
Suffolk
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
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; WD, no data was received.
37
Appendix A
Fish-Kill Events by Year, 1980-1989
Maine
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Total
New
Hampshi
re
e
k
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Massachusetts
Total
2
1
2
6
2
3
3
2
6
1
28
1.030
20
6
76
310
107
12
2
62
3
1,628
2
19
4
39
0
0
1
39,119
1
3
5
82
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
8
19
39,273
5
1,050
5
59
2
6
7
39,195
3
313
8
189
3
12
4
4
8
64
3
10
48
40,903
Fish-Kill Events by Direct Cause, 1980-1989
Maine
Direct Cause
New
Hampshire
e k
Massachusetts
Total
Low D. 0
5
488
Temperature
1
2
Sedimentation
0
0
Eutrophication
0
0
Disease
0
0
Stranding
2
6
Storm Event
1
NR
Wastewater
9
1.019
Animal Waste
0
0
pH
4
6
Organic Chemicals
2
21
Inorganic Chemicals/Metals
2
70
Mixed Chemicals
1
7
Pesticides
0
0
Nutrients
0
0
Salinity Changes
0
0
Petroleum
1
10
Chlorine
0
0
Red Tide
0
0
Predation
0
0
Unspecified
0
0
Total
28
1,628
4
39.126
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
0
0
3
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
79
19
39,273
9
39,614
2
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
9
1
NR
12
1,036
0
0
4
6
2
21
3
71
1
7
2
45
0
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
79
48
40,903
Abbreviations: e number of events;*, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish: NR, number of fish killed not reported; Low DO., low-dissolved oxygen.
a Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions.
38
North Atlantic
Fish-Kill Events by Land-Use Cause, 1980-1989
Maine
New
Hampshi
re
Massachusetts '
Total
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
8
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
Fish-Kill Events by Incident, 1980-1989
Maine
New
Massachusetts
Total
Incident
e
k
I
e
Hampshire
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
15
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; 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.
39
Appendix A - Middle Atlantic
Northern
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Southern
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Delaware
11 Coastal County Number
40
Middle Atlantic
Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989
Killed
State/County
Events
(x100)
was repor
Middle Atlantic (Northern)
Massachusetts
1
Barnstable
Data found in
the North Atlantic region.
2
Berkshire
1
<1
100
3
Bristol
5
232
100
4
Dukes
ND
ND
ND
5
Hampden
2
126
100
*
Nantucket
ND
ND
ND
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
Rhode Island
9
Bristol
ND
ND
ND
10
Kent
6
46
100
11
Newport
2
22
50
12
Providence
7
17
71
13
Washington
3
52
100
Subtotal
18
136
83
Connecticut
14
Fairfield
8
1,337
88
15
Hartford
11
23
82
16
Litchfield
4
27
100
17
Middlesex
8
161
100
18
New Haven
9
1,100
100
19
New London
11
143
91
20
Tolland
2
2
100
21
Windham
2
1
100
Subtotal
55
2,794
93
New York
22
Albany
8
549
75
23
Bronx
2
20,000
100
24
Columbia
11
229
73
25
Dutchess
11
11
100
26
Greene
11
45
73
27
Kings
WD
ND
WD
28
Nassau
1
NR
0
29
New York
ND
ND
ND
30
Orange
28
208
93
31
Putnam
11
59
100
32
Queens
1
20
100
33
Rensselaer
17
11.635
76
34
Richmond
2
100
100
35
Rockland
9
30
78
36
Schenectady
ND
ND
ND
% of events % of events # of events
where # killed where cause where 1 million or
of kill was reported more fish were killed
0
60
WD
100
WD
63
WD
83
50
71
67
72
75
82
75
63
78
73
100
100
76
63
100
91
91
73
WD
100
WD
75
82
100
65
100
67
WD
0
0
WD
0
WD
WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
WD
0
WD
0
0
0
1
0
0
WD
Abbreviations: %, percent; #, number; NR. number of fish killed not reported; WD.no data was received
* Not shown on map.
41
Appendix A
Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989
State County
Middle Atlantic (Northern)
New York (cont.)
37 Schoharie
38 Suffolk
39 Sullivan
40 Ulster
41 Westchester
Subtotal
New Jersey
42 Atlantic
43 Bergen
44 Burlington
45 Camden
46 Cape May
47 Cumberland
48 Essex
49 Gloucester
50 Hudson
51 Hunterdon
52 Mercer
53 Middlesex
54 Monmouth
55 Morris
56 Ocean
57 Passaic
58 Salem
59 Somerset
60 Sussex
61 Union
Subtotal
Pennsylvania
62 Bucks
63 Chester
64 Delaware
65 Lancaster
66 Montgomery
67 Philadelphia
68 York
Subtotal
Delaware
69 Kent
70 Newcastle
71 Sussex
Subtotal
Events
1
7
WD
14
17
151
ND
10
8
3
ND
1
3
9
2
3
6
11
13
11
4
6
5
9
3
5
112
3
8
3
ND
1
1
ND
16
46
38
36
120
Killed
(x100)
% of events
where # killed
was reported
% of events # of events
where cause where 1 million or
of kill was reported more fish were killed
<1
38
ND
136
82
33,142
ND
NR
NR
NR
ND
NR
<1
NR
NR
NR
2
101
NR
<1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
103
22
144
36
ND
<1
5
ND
207
236.781
396
43.056
280,233
100
100
ND
100
94
88
ND
0
0
0
ND
0
33
0
0
0
17
9
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
100
100
67
ND
100
100
ND
94
98
100
97
98
100
57
WD
79
82
77
WD
80
75
67
WD
0
33
67
0
67
33
73
46
55
50
50
60
44
0
100
57
67
75
67
WD
0
0
WD
63
53
54
70
58
0
0
WD
0
0
3
WD
0
0
0
WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WD
0
0
WD
0
3
0
3
6
Abbreviations %. percent. D. number. NR. number of fish killed not reported. WD.no data was received
42
Middle Atlantic
Fish-Kill Events by County,1 980-1 989
Killed
% of events
where # killed
State/County
Events
(x100)
was repc
Middle Atlantic (Southern)
Maryland
2
Anne Arundel
182
359,847
66
3
Baltimore
47
14,340
91
4
Calvert
17
27,715
88
5
Caroline
3
11
100
6
Carroll
7
30
100
7
Cecil
18
231
67
8
Charles
14
10.061
86
9
Dorchester
15
18,852
73
10
Harford
21
1,382
76
11
Howard
4
6
75
12
Kent
7
1,522
71
13
Montgomery
4
7
75
14
Prince George's
9
222
67
15
Queen Anne's
14
111
71
16
St. Mary's
28
23,727
86
17
Somerset
7
39
86
18
Talbot
14
17,674
93
19
Wicomico
13
203,252
85
20
Worcester
1
100
100
21
Baltimore City
23
179
65
22
District of Columbia
7
5,520
71
Subtotal
455
684,828
75
Virginia
23
Accomack
2
2
50
24
Albemarle
ND
WD
ND
25
Amelia
ND
WD
ND
26
Appomattox
1
NR
0
27
Arlington
3
15
100
28
Buckingham
ND
WD
ND
29
Caroline
2
428
100
30
Charles City
1
1
100
31
Chesterfield
5
42
100
32
Cumberland
WD
WD
ND
33
Dinwiddie
ND
WD
ND
34
Essex
ND
WD
ND
35
Fairfax
8
48
100
36
Fauquier
2
<1
50
37
Fluvanna
1
<1
100
38
Gloucester
1
1,000
100
39
Goochland
WD
WD
ND
40
Hanover
WD
WD
ND
41
Henrico
5
24
100
42
Isle of Wight
WD
WD
ND
43
James City
2
60
100
44
King and Oueen
WD
WD
WD
% of events # of events
where cause where 1 million or
of kill was reported more fish were killed
82
60
76
33
71
33
36
93
90
75
57
50
33
64
82
43
86
77
100
78
71
73
0
WD
WD
0
67
WD
100
0
60
WD
WD
WD
88
50
100
0
WD
WD
100
WD
100
WD
8
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
5
0
0
0
20
0
WD
WD
0
0
WD
0
0
0
WD
WD
WD
0
0
0
0
WD
WO
0
WD
0
WD
Abbreviations: Wfl, number of fish killed not reported, WD. no data was received.
43
Appendix A
Fish-Kill Events by County, 1 980-1 989
% 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
46 King William
47 Lancaster
48 Loudoun
49 Louisa
50 Mathews
51 Middlesex
52 New Kent
53 Northampton
54 Northumberland
55 Nottoway
56 Orange
57 Powhatan
58 Prince Edward
59 Prince George
60 Prince William
61 Richmond
62 Spotsylvania
63 Stafford
64 Surry
65 Westmoreland
66 York
Virginia (Independent Cities)
67 Alexandria
68 Chesapeake
69 Colonial Heights
70 Fairfax
71 Falls Church
72 Fredericksburg
73 Hampton
74 Hopewell
75 Manassas
76 Manassas Park
77 Newport News
78 Norfolk
79 Petersburg
80 Poquoson
81 Portsmouth
82 Richmond
' Southampton
83 Suffolk
84 Virginia Beach
85 Williamsburg
Subtotal
WD
ND
3
1
1
1
2
1
ND
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
4
2
ND
2
ND
4
3
ND
ND
126.400
2
1
4
20
<1
ND
11.052
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
46
23
ND
1
ND
70
10,015
3 21
Data found in the South Atlantic region.
1
WD
WD
WD
2
8
WD
WD
2
6
2
2
5
3
Data found in the South Atlantic region
Data found in the South Atlantic region
Data found in the South Atlantic region
ND ND
98
151,591
WD
WD
67
100
100
100
50
100
WD
100
WD
WD
WD
WD
100
100
100
WD
100
WD
75
100
100
,503
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
22
100
201
88
ND
ND
ND
ND
22
100
35
100
<1
50
503
100
8
80
NR
0
WD
88
WD
WD
0
100
100
0
0
0
WD
50
WD
WD
WD
WD
67
100
50
WD
50
WD
25
33
33
100
WD
WD
WD
50
75
WD
WD
50
83
50
50
80
67
WD
61
WD
WD
2
0
0
0
0
0
WD
1
WD
WD
WD
WD
0
0
0
WD
0
WD
0
1
0
WD
WD
WD
0
0
WD
WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
WD
4
Middle AtlanticTotal
National Total
1.033
3.654
1,153,392
4,071,630
65
84
69
79
33
86
Abbreviations NR. number ol fish killed not reponed. WD. no data was received
' Not shown on map
44
Middle Atlantic
00
o
■
o
CO
o>
(0
d)
>-
>»
-Q
Cfl
c
a>
>
LU
i
(A
■<t
■*
m
oo
CU
-*
o
U)
C\J
h-"
D)
t~
>>
o
is
o
o
C — Q)
<n a)
</> (A
co s
CM
r^
in
CN
co
,—
CM
CO
en
en
CM
^r
rr
i-
o
CO
o
CO
in
a>
LO
CD
CD
o
T—
CD
co
CD
CD
CO
CD
o
o
r-
^r
r-
t~~
co
CM
in
co
in
CM
co
CN
CM
co
CN
■^f
CM
*"
in
CN
in
i-LOlOCMi-CMO>i-f~a> CO
coi--f*rmoiDtor--cM co
cD^ini^r-oicm i-
o oo co in co cm
coooomr-^cNcoooin
,
XT
CM
■tf
ST .2
■*
in
ro
c c
c CO
CD >
a>
CD
*fr
00
a.
o o m o eg o o
O O i- O CM O O
O O O O ,_ (£
o 2
in r-- o o o o
in o o a> co
in o ■* o
in o -^ cm
■■-" o"
CM i- t- °°
CM CO r~ CO
Ol CO <t (M N CM CD "tf r- "*
i- i- CO CD CM O r-
r- O CO CM
CM
-*
CO
o
CO
CO
in
in
o
,—
oo
•<t
a)
n
-t
r*.
U)
o
co
cn
CM
TJ
CM
T—
f-
in
CM
in
CM
CD
00
C
■*
O
CM
CO
m
CO
n>
00
ro
•*
CD
m
tt
CO
co
CO
CM
CM
CD
S
o
CM
en
o
"*
CO
ro
r»
CD
CM
Q>
CM
CM
CM
m
o
r>-
CO
in
m
t^
in
_
co
CO
CO
o
co
,_
CM
00
CM
in
in
f--
ro
l~-
CD
-5e
in
r--
IT)
o
CO
uu
O
CM
CO
in
o
1^
in
1—
oo
,—
f->
1—
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
CD
LI
CD
CM
•*f
o
CO
i—
00
in
CO
1^
o
Cb
*—
T-
CM
■f—
■f—
^~
*~
CM
7- CO
V <=>
in
mincMM-cDCDr^'-mT-
cr cMcMooocn omr-
g ^f g cm 7- in
t-CMi-OCMOt-t-CON oo
OO ooooocm in
CD CO t— CM
i-OOi-OOt-CMCMt-
O'-CMnTtlfllDNCOOl
cdoocooooococooooooo
cdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcd
CD
Is
II
W CD
— -O CO
T, 2 -D
9- E
LO
-p. <2 o
1 2°
ego
*" ™.o
in ? i=
CD ^ Q
CD O CD
2 2 «
c W U)
«?«
co I 2
.18?
ra = ™
> co ^
fD o CO
£z5
< CO JO
45
Appendix A
CO
en
o
CO
en
3
a
O
o
a>
-
c
o
>
UJ
I
.c
■*
9
D
i-
q>
c
Je
cr
t-
>
0)
C
«
ra
&
eo
2
0)
0)
ra
.*
5
0!
0)
Q
fl)
>-
c/i
03
-e
c
C
C
03
0)
>
C)
ix
>~
-r
3
0)
CD
1/3
z
cd
03
*•
o
-K
>
3
CD
z
q>
,
o
0)
^
•ae
B
3
c
u
o
O
0)
T3
E
■*
O
01
r
cr
l/l
0)
4
B
0/
-*
(A
•s>
■
3
s
x:
o
0)
«
en
3
o
O
0)
w
o
cm ^---coi-CMincMncoh- *-CMo>coocoio*Tior>-
CJlO'-QCOCJl'-COO^t'CNIlOCDh- ID O) « o
coiDooiococof-.r) cm *r co r*- in co o
■ * F to ^ IT)
0 CM ^ *-
O OJ O q o *-
CM r- O t- O CO
nocMCMir)'-'<roo r-- co *- *- go
co in "~ 9«)Bt^,""r** "~r" 2 co
»- cj> S s. I * 9 °
cm" CD in cd en ^-" cm"
in t m .-
CM CM 1-
mo *- o co in o-^-O'-'-ni-oioo ^ ▼- o O (0
S UJ S *- cm v v o in *- .-
o co o cm in
ID Ol'-OCM'- OtO'-'-'tCO'^'OO T CM O O CO
O OOOOO OCOOOOO*-COOO *- CM O O CO
•-ccttttccoocrtttC'-crcco-ooccctoocM
2222 2 2 2 ° 2 2 2 22
CO i-CO-^TCOO OCO'-CMTJ-CO'^CDOO COIDOOQO
COOO'-m^'-O'JCOO'-OCOOOCMlDCMi-m »-
C3 CMOO^JO OCMi-OOOOCOOOt-O CM ^ O O CO
O) OOCMOO OCVJOOOCOOOOO OOOOO
01 00.-00 o^-ooocmoooo ooooin
O <5
° n
i E
E 2
CT> CO
C >* CD C
GO ai Q 00
5 <
o tr Q. 3
"5 i/>
co
"O
c
n
CD
CD
CO
c
5
CD .
T~
-O CO
o
- -O
a F
a 5
co
h
n.O
in
3
i3 "o
rt
C
. . o
CO
"O t
"D^
CD
=)D
>
CD
U CD
C J=
O
CD CD
CD
n
™ ^
fc
C c
c
CO
c o
o-o
o c
a
— ra
"cr-
>
CD
ro
n
z>
o
o
h-
<
n3 .Q
46
Middle Atlantic
00
6
CO
O)
fl)"
</>
3
(0
O
o
(A
3
>»
(A
CD
>
LU
il
</T.2
c c
c co
<d >
Q.
J CO
Z CU
o ■*
5?
CD
r
-*
</)
m
C/>
</>
CD
3
i
O
Q)
0)
en
CD
o
CD
in
=>
XJ
c
CD
CM « CO CO CM
t- co m in t^
to cm <o CM CO
« p <*" 5
w to in co
r- CM CO
in in co co co
CO t- en
•tf CD *- ,_
co^tcnooooooco
O t-OOOOOOOCO
t-COC\JCOOOOOO>
r-cuoin oooory in
in o co cd 3- 3
t* CO 1- CM O O)
r^-^-T-^-cNjoooo o>
COCDCvjT-inOOOOCO
ocNcoocnoooo to
O*-C\JOC\JOOOOC0
"- o o o o o o
ocMT-oooooom
e cu ^
■0 DC — "D
"5— c i 3 c 01 >.
ilsisilil
~-on Q. co _> ? 5S
<^d! 5cng55
3 CO
co CC
2
in —
*■ o
CO
2 o
T3
m
(]|
in
JZ
£
CD .
-O CO
CO
"5
■= J3
CO
o.E
^
CO 3
-O
co 0
CO
b
cdO
c
iS 0
V
CO —
. . 0
to"
"ft —
CD to
I
■ft^
CD
CD
3D
l/l
CO
>
CD
CJ CD
O
CD CD
a)
9
ft
5"?
E
c-r^
c
CD
c; 0
n —
OT3
O c
S
— CO
CO^.
in
7S-
O
H
<
CO -ft
47
Appendix A
<7> CD CO
§ 3
s
c
>
C
a
&
■
2: ■*
CD
i
£
5
«T5 *
5 CD
z <u
-» 0)
0 m
DC — Q)
1 i
(D O) ID
Tf ^ —
co co 00
in — in ,- *-
in go co
co cm t-
w ,- to *-
CD CM r- CO CM f-
eo *- o v
TrcMCMco*-cooocM
— m en °o ^r cd »-
v co 00 <o cm co co
CM r- CO i-
r-cof^cMiDcninom ,_
co — — motooooo
OTTOOOtDOOto
OCMOOOCOOOCO
n
= m £ >
-p Q. CD
Q) (fl •-
a 2 ®
< (J5" tn 2 q Q 5
c
eg
CD
JC
*
V)
a
0
XJ
CD
a
E
3
0J
en
n
E
3
CD
O
co
O
■*
CO
U
p
0)
CO
c
D
CD
3
f 1
>
CD
"5
a
c
CD
CD
1-
O
rt!
■D
a
J
b
3
c
0
C
'It
CD
c=
CO
CO
c
O
0
r
CD
CO
>
CO
?-
0
'1
co
0
Z.
2
CI
<
CD
0
48
Appendix A - South Atlantic
Coastal I
50
South 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
Virgina
1 Southampton
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
2 Chesapeake
7
130
100
57
0
3 Suffolk
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
4 Virginia Beach
24
25,369
96
71
1
Subtotal
31
25,499
97
68
1
North Carolina
5 Anson
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
6 Beaufort
55
103,930
80
76
6
7 Bertie
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
8 Bladen
1
2
100
100
0
9 Brunswick
1
2
100
0
0
10 Camden
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
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
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
17 Dare
2
30,001
100
100
1
18 Duplin
4
3
75
50
0
19 Edgecombe
3
2
100
0
0
20 Gates
WD
WD
WD
WD
wo
21 Greene
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
22 Halifax
1
15
100
0
0
23 Harnett
2
1
50
100
0
24 Hertford
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
25 Hyde
6
60,058
100
50
2
26 Johnston
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
27 Jones
1
<1
100
0
0
28 Lenoir
3
31
100
67
0
29 Martin
1
2
100
0
0
30 Nash
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
31 New Hanover
6
237
100
67
0
32 Northampton
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
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
WD
WD
WD
WD
WO
38 Pitt
3
22
100
100
0
39 Richmond
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
40 Robeson
3
4
100
67
0
41 Sampson
6
8
100
83
0
42 Scotland
1
<1
100
0
0
43 Tyrrell
1
WR
0
0
0
44 Union
WD
WD
WD
WD
wo
* Wake
WD
WO
WD
WD
WD
45 Washington
4
37
75
75
0
Abbreviations: %, percent.
' Not shown on map.
#, number; WR. number of tish killed not reported;
WD. no data was received
51
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
North Carolina (cont .)
46 Wayne
47 Wilson
Subtotal
South Carolina
48 Allendale
49 Bamberg
50 Beaufort
51 Berkeley
52 Charleston
53 Chesterfield
54 Clarendon
55 Colleton
56 Darlington
57 Dillon
58 Dorchester
59 Florence
60 Georgetown
61 Hampton
62 Horry
63 Jasper
64 Kershaw
65 Lancaster
66 Lee
67 Marion
68 Marlboro
69 Orangeburg
70 Sumter
71 Williamsburg
Subtotal
Georgia
72 Appling
73 Atkinson
74 Bacon
75 Ben Hill
76 Brantley
77 Bryan
* Brooks
78 Bulloch
79 Camden
80 Charlton
81 Chatham
82 Clinch
83 Coffee
" Decatur
84 Effingham
1
30
0
1
NR
0
153
256,397
82
WD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
73
343
96
11
72
91
53
332
83
2
<1
50
ND
ND
ND
5
165
80
7
35
100
1
2
100
9
24
89
8
192
88
1
100
100
1
12
100
9
68
100
2
21
100
WD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
12
100
2
11
100
1
<1
100
3
1
67
ND
ND
ND
191
1,393
91
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
14
100
ND
ND
ND
1
1
100
ND
ND
ND
n the Gull ol Mexico Region
1
1
100
2
16
100
ND
ND
ND
15
26,949
100
ND
ND
ND
2
4
100
Data found in the Gull ol Mexico Region
ND ND
ND
100
100
71
ND
ND
70
64
83
0
ND
100
57
100
67
88
100
100
78
50
ND
ND
ND
33
50
0
33
ND
72
ND
ND
0
ND
100
ND
100
0
ND
0
ND
100
ND
0
0
11
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WD
WD
WD
0
0
0
0
WD
0
WD
WD
0
WD
0
WD
0
0
WD
1
WD
0
WD
Abbreviations %. percent. #, number. WR number ol fish killed not reported.WD.no data was received.
" Not shown on map
52
South 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
Georgia (cont.)
85 Emanuel
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
* Evans
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
86 Glynn
3
82
100
0
0
* Grady
Data found in the Gull ol Mexico Region.
87 Irwin
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
88 Jeff Davis
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
89 Jenkins
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
90 Liberty
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
91 Long
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
92 Mcintosh
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
93 Montgomery
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
94 Pierce
1
43
100
0
0
95 Screven
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
96 Tattnall
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
* Thomas
Data found in the Gulf of Mexico Region.
97 Toombs
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
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
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
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 Gull of Mexico Region.
107 Dade
87
364
100
80
0
108 Duval
56
15,273
82
70
1
109 Flagler
1
30
100
100
0
110 Hendry
Dafa 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
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
117 Okeechobee
9
200
100
100
0
118 Orange
18
360,234
89
72
2
119 Osceola
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
120 Palm Beach
383
1,748
100
96
0
121 Putnam
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
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; Wfl. number ot fish killed not reported. WD.
no data was received.
' Not shown on map.
53
Appendix A
Fish-Kill Events by Year, 1980-1989
Year
Virginia
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Total
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Total
7
20.235
6
22
29
271
4
122
11
96
57
20,745
10
5.109
19
100.130
22
124
3
75
79
442,039
133
547,478
2
14
25
1,218
23
153
0
0
51
6,132
101
7,517
4
7
11
30.538
15
360
7
21
81
2.666
118
33,592
1
5
14
390
16
38
0
0
68
5,200
99
5,634
0
0
26
113.492
24
73
7
208
94
168.378
151
282,151
2
120
10
98
34
270
5
574
192
885
243
1,948
4
6
21
10.170
16
70
2
5
120
510
163
10,760
1
3
15
207
12
33
2
2
137
15.501
167
15,746
0
0
6
132
0
0
3
26,186
209
1,024
218
27,342
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
v
irginia '
1
slorth
South
Georgia a
Florida a
Total
Carolina
Carolina
Direct Cause
e
k
e
k
e
k
e
k
e
k
e
k
Low D. O.
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 ol events;*, number of fish killed in hundreds ot fish; NR. number of fish killed not reported; Low DO.
a Not all counties in state included; state is split between regions
low-dissolved oxygen.
54
South Atlantic
Fish-Kill Events by Land-Use Cause, 1980-1989
Virginia ''
North
South
Georgia
Florida '
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
Fish-Kill Events by Incident, 1980-1989
Virginia3
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
Georgia a
Florida a
Total
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
18
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
1
<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: 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.
55
Appendix A - Gulf of Mexico
[ri] Coastal County Number
56
Gulf of Mexico
Fish-Kill Events by County, 1980-1989
State/County
Events
(X100)
was repo
Gulf of Mexico (Easfern)
Florida
1
Bay
10
2,031
90
2
Calhoun
ND
WD
ND
3
Charlotte
9
10
89
*
Cirtus
2
75
100
4
Collier
49
299
100
5
Columbia
1
15
100
6
Dade
Data found in
the South Atlantic Region.
7
De Soto
1
30
100
8
Dixie
ND
ND
ND
9
Escambia
26
5,513
85
10
Franklin
2
20,001
100
11
Gadsden
2
30,000
100
12
Gilchrist
ND
ND
ND
13
Glades
2
6
100
14
Gulf
4
411
100
*
Hamilton
4
5
75
15
Hardee
1
3
100
16
Hendry
8
61
100
*
Hernando
1
3
100
17
Highlands
5
893
100
18
Hillsborough
12
76
100
19
Holmes
1
0
100
20
Jackson
3
31
67
21
Jefferson
ND
ND
ND
22
Lafayette
ND
ND
ND
23
Lee
12
15
92
24
Leon
ND
ND
ND
25
Levy
1
27
100
26
Liberty
1
0
100
27
Madison
1
3
100
28
Manatee
2
2
100
29
Monroe
7
374
86
30
Okaloosa
5
1,411
80
31
Pasco
12
134
100
32
Pinellas
12
231
100
33
Polk
19
2,124
89
34
Santa Rosa
17
66,110
82
35
Sarasota
6
58
83
*
Sumter
2
9
100
36
Suwannee
ND
ND
ND
37
Taylor
2
3
100
38
Wakulla
ND
ND
ND
39
Walton
6
110
100
40
Washington
2
4
100
Subtotal
250
130,079
93
% of events
% of events
# of events
where # killed
where cause of
where 1 million or
was reported
kill was reported
more fish were killed
80
ND
100
50
92
100
100
ND
85
100
0
ND
100
75
75
100
88
100
100
75
0
100
ND
ND
100
ND
100
0
0
100
100
80
100
92
89
94
67
100
ND
100
ND
67
100
88
0
ND
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
1
1
WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WD
WD
0
WD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
WD
0
ND
0
0
4
Abbreviations: %, percent; #, number; NR, number of fish killed not reported; WD. 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
(x100)
was reported
kill was reported
more fish were killed
Gulf of Mexico (Eastern)
Georgia
41
Brooks
WD
ND
ND
WD
WD
42
Decatur
ND
ND
ND
ND
WD
43
Grady
ND
ND
ND
ND
WD
44
Thomas
2
14
100
50
0
Subtotal
2
14
100
50
0
Alabama
45
Baldwin
12
91.429
83
100
2
a 6
Choctaw
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
47
Clarke
ND
ND
ND
ND
WD
48
Coffee
ND
ND
ND
ND
WD
49
Conecuh
ND
ND
ND
ND
WD
50
Covington
1
0
100
100
0
51
Crenshaw
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
52
Escambia
ND
ND
WD
ND
WD
53
Geneva
ND
ND
WD
ND
WD
54
Houston
ND
ND
WD
ND
WD
55
Mobile
30
40.537
93
87
2
56
Monroe
ND
ND
WD
ND
WD
57
Washington
1
1
100
100
0
58
Wilcox
WD
ND
ND
ND
WD
Subtotal
44
131,967
91
91
4
Mississippi
59
Amite
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
60
Franklin
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
61
George
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
62
Greene
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
63
Hancock
2
55
100
100
0
64
Harrison
2
4
50
100
0
65
Jackson
2
20,002
100
50
1
66
Lamar
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
67
Lincoln
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
68
Marion
1
20
100
100
0
69
Pearl River
WD
ND
ND
WD
WD
70
Perry
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
7'
Pike
ND
ND
ND
WD
WO
72
Stone
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
73
Walthall
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
74
Wayne
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
75
Wilkinson
ND
ND
ND
WD
WD
Subtotal
7
20,081
86
86
1
Abbreviations %. percent: #. number; WR. number of fish killed not reported; WO. no data was received.
58
Gulf of Mexico
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
Gulf of Mexico (Western)
Louisiana
*
Acadia
5
961
80
80
0
1
Allen
ND
WD
WD
ND
ND
2
Ascension
5
12
80
80
0
3
Assumption
9
547
89
89
0
4
Avoyelles
ND
WD
WD
WD
ND
5
Beauregard
ND
ND
WD
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
WD
WD
ND
10
Evangeline
ND
ND
WD
WD
ND
11
Iberia
8
73
38
100
0
12
Iberville
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
WD
WD
WD
WD
20
Rapides
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
21
Sabine
ND
ND
WD
WD
ND
22
St. Bernard
6
4
33
83
0
23
St. Charles
7
115
29
86
0
24
St. Helena
ND
WD
WD
WD
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
Wfl
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
WD
WD
ND
ND
35
Washington
ND
WD
WD
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
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
Gulf o* Mexico (Western)
Texas
38
Angelina
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
39
Aransas
10
6,297
30
70
0
40
Austin
2
5
100
100
0
41
Bee
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
42
Brazoria
36
15.569
69
81
1
43
Brooks
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
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
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
48
De Witt
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
49
Duval
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
50
Fayette
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
51
Fort Bend
19
5.928
68
58
0
52
Galveston
72
1.059,707
81
90
8
53
Goliad
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
54
Gonzales
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
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
5?
Jasper
3
245
100
100
0
60
Jefferson
20
1,821
75
80
0
61
Jim Hogg
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
62
Jim Wells
1
NR
0
0
0
63
Karnes
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
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
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
69
McMullen
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
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
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
76
San Patricio
5
33,260
60
100
1
77
Starr
1
1
100
100
0
78
Tyler
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
79
Victoria
1
NR
0
0
0
80
Waller
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
81
Washington
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
82
Webb
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
83
Wharton
3
NR
0
100
0
84
Willacy
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
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: Wfl, number ot fish killed not repoded.WD.no data was received
60
Gulf of Mexico
Fish-Kill Events by Year, 1980-1989
Florida3
Georgia3
Alabama
Mississippi
Lou
siana
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
49,121
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
Fish-Kill Events by Direct Cause, 1980-1989
Florida a
Georgia3
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
18
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
1 1 ,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
NR
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: e number of events; k, number of fish killed in
hundreds of fish; NF
I 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
Geo
rgia '
Alabama
Mississippi
Lou
isiana
Texas
Total
Land-Use Cause
e
k
e
k
e
k
e
k
e
k
e
k
e
ft
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 '
Georgia1
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
i
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 e number of events;*, 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.
62
Appendix A - pacific
11 Coastal County Number
64
Pacific
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
California
1
Alameda
6
516
100
83
0
2
Contra Costa
6
65
100
67
0
3
Del Norte
WD
ND
WD
WD
WD
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
80
60
0
11
Placer
WD
WD
WD
WO
WD
12
Sacramento
7
28
86
43
0
13
San Benito
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
14
San Bernardino
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
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
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
27
Ventura
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
28
Yolo
2
162
100
100
0
Subtotal
148
9,267
97
74
0
Oregon
29
Benton
WD
ND
WD
WD
WD
30
Clackamas
6
165
67
67
0
31
Clatsop
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
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
WD
ND
WD
WD
WD
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
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
42
Tillamook
1
2
100
100
0
43
Washington
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
44
Yamhill
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
Subtotal
40
874
90
73
0
Abbreviations: NR. number of fish killed not reported; WD, 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
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
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
ND
ND
WD
WD
WD
56
Pierce
9
212
89
100
0
57
Skagit
3
20
33
100
0
58
Skamania
WD
ND
WD
WD
WD
59
Snohomish
16
859
75
81
0
60
Thurston
5
3,554
80
100
0
61
Wahkiakum
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
Whatcom
16
640
75
75
0
62
Yakima
ND
WD
WD
WD
WD
Subtotal
105
32,670
76
72
1
Total
293
42,81 1
88
73
1
Nationa
I Total
3,654
4,071,630
84
79
86
Abbreviations: NR. number of fish killed not reported, WD, no data was received.
* Not shown on map
66
Pacific
Fish-Kill Events by Year, 1980-1989
Year
California
Oregon
e k
Washington
e k
Total
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Total
23
713
13
195
7
519
43
1,427
31
522
8
102
10
29,856
49
30.480
24
6,258
5
59
8
129
37
6.445
13
105
0
0
6
424
19
529
12
315
7
2
9
178
28
496
19
506
2
124
6
372
27
1,002
5
13
5
392
12
462
22
867
10
711
0
0
28
706
38
1.417
9
124
0
0
9
13
18
136
2
<1
0
0
10
12
12
12
148
9,267
40
874
105
32,670
293
42,811
Fish-Kill Events by Direct Cause, 1980-1989
California
f
Dregon
Washington
Total
Direct Cause
e
k
e
k
e
k
e
k
Low D. O.
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: e number of events; k, number of fish killed in hundreds of fish; NR. number of fish killed not reported; Low DO. low-dissolved oxygen.
t?~
Appendix A
Fish-Kill Events by Land-Use Cause, 1980-1989
California
Oregon
Wash
ington
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
Wash
ington
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
Appendix B
%
X
\ %
% \
o ,
V
J, fy
\
V
»
CO
en
CO
z
-
>
z
CM
_J
Q
>
0 , a
m
CM
co O
CM <
CO
90
>
eg
z
z
V
2
-
>-
0
0
in
0
0
0
0
UL
<
in
to
CO
>
C\J
>-
>
Q
2
-
Q
>-
LO
in
CM
in
co 4-
>- <
tO
CO
r--
>■
CM
>
z
0
CO
—I
-
z
O
O
LO
0
0
0
0
<
m
>
CO
z
z
V
_l
CO
>
O
in
0
0
co
Q
CD
>-
C\J
z
z
C\J
_l
-
>
O
10
2
0
0
UL.
<
o
0
CO
>-
CM
z
>
O
I
-
z
2 LO
0 ! !"■
0
0
0
0
LL.
<
in
CO
z
CM
>-
z
1
_J
co
>
5
0
m
a
2
0
0
<
LO
CO
z
CO
z
z
O
*A
i
co
z
0
0
in
0
0
s
«- <
0
0
0
LU
SO
9°
>-
CM
>-
z
co
>
0
<
LO
0
00
>
CO
>-
z
2:
^
Q
>
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
OU-.
o>
>
CM
>-
z
0
CD
2
co
z
LO
a
5
0
0
0
0
Ocl
CDQ
>*
CO
>
-
>-
>
CO
2
CO
z
2
0
0
0
CO
LL
<
o
CO
CD
>-
-
z
>
V
_i
CO
z
m
CM
0
0
LO
O
O
O
<
o
LO
CO
>
CO
>-
z
5
Q
2
z
0
0
0
0
O
O
Q
2
O
<
in
CO
Q
z
CM
z
z
CM
_i
Q
2
z
in
CM
0
LO
LO
CM
0
co
O
CD
o
Q
2
z
LO
z
>
O
A
2
CO
z
Q
O
LO
in
CM
2 <
1
Q
2
z
CM
z
z
5
_j
co
z
0
O
m
O
m
0
0
<
CO
co
>
CO
z
z
V
_i
CO
>-
0 m
in h»
LO
CM
1- <
o
SP
CO
CO
z
CM
>
>
O
to
2
2
CO
>
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
<
o
CO
0
z
-
z
z
-
5
co
z
in
CM
0
0
O
O
8 Q
•- CD
CVJ
CO
>
CO
z
z
'v
_i
CO
z
O
O
0
0
m
CM
8 cd"-.
c*-
CD
0
CO
3
2
0
0
0
0>
9°
■<T
E
CD
ro
c
9!
a.
c
o-
CO
CD
c
6S
SO
en
CO
a)
03
a>
c
0
J- CO
0 w
CD
e
CD
C
s 3
ro ro
0 °
£3 CO
CO CO
— C
5 E
E
0
©
CO
c
TJ
0}
c
0
a.
a)
c
CO
T3
<D
N
©
c
'n
c
CO
E
c
0
CO
>
tf
0
a.
a.
90
c
3
■0
3
■0
3
0
0
O
CD
a.
ro
tr
0
a.
CO
c
in
to
t:
ro
c
CO
E
a)
CO
c
0)
O)
3
a.
E
0
0
CO
e
0
a.
0
3
a)
CD
E
CO
E
ro
01
tr
R
a.
3
c
0
ro
N
C
CO
0
PS
~ T3
0 ro
CO
c
5
g
CL
CD
E
cd
Ol
o
>
CO
CO
ra
■a
0
0
0)
cu
0
0
a
E
3
0
0
CO
CO
ro
c
c
ro
CO
3
to
UJ
t
Q.
0
©
>
c
CO
01
c
ro
£
CD
O)
O
CO
TO
0
ro
c
y
CD
CD
O)
ro
c
D
CO n Z
a— S
ro co g
c S co
y is <3"
(0
0
g
en
0.
O
<
z
<
<
O
O
CL CL
a ro a.
NOI1VZINV9HO VWdOOHd
asn viva v sai
dnaaoobd 3mivous3ani
ra
CD
O =3
a> ro co
h»S
C co CD
CD t 1-
So-"
= » -
TO co "
* s «>
E™ E
o ■ S
^S '
»Cj,"l
to CO ^ .
c c ro -rj
O £ 3 g
CLE Ji;
to p co co
CD O "O ©
5 o o «
' » c'
■ "CD ■ "
Q cr _i o
oi-c O
ro ±= w
c ro cd
a ? ro
13 Ǥ
E "" 3.
o2u
c ro o
o u co
112
ro 0 lu
C K o
CD .1 £
tQ_
5 • °
IIh
£ O) cd
Jo E
o !5 2
ro ±
c: a> 2.
§c I
E ro 01
co o c
5? © to r-
o £ 5 o
0 7, - Q-
- g 15 »
' -^ c —
CO c © ©
^ cd e-g
" © O c
O T3 -o O
^ j— ro ■
■ - H tO Li-
^ © ~ o
^ g S 3
11 tf) ??
R £ " "
^o ro o d
o? * g"
10 E ^ ©
' c « -c
to t c —
C\J _, o 75
II ? °-
" £ tf) £
O t: © rr
in d *- 2
O" tf) CD
"0 cd 5? -C
b? w tr b
- 1? =
_ tf) C m
CM ,-T _ —
~ 5-
S «
5? « 5 ©
0 w o ro
. © 01 o
0 » £ .£
« ™ g ,2
1 8 I".
H 5 ~° 8
s o o 5
■ • 01
< O £
s
69
kooo^
]°00q
mm
>«0t.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11