CI 5 5. 2-F Si /V Fish Kills in Coastal Waters 1980-1989 PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY DEC 3 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 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 □ 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 - 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 □ 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 2 Aroostook ND WD WD WD WD 3 Cumberland 1 2 100 100 4 Franklin 1 1 100 100 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 10 Penobscot 13 31 92 100 11 Piscataquis ND WD WD WD WD 12 Sagadahoc 3 460 100 100 13 Somerset 2 4 100 100 14 Waldo WD WD WD WD WD 15 Washington 2 45 100 100 16 York 1 NR 100 Subtotal 28 1,628 90 100 New Hampshire 17 Belknap 1 1 100 100 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 Massachusetts 25 Barnstable 10 39,207 90 70 1 26 Essex WD WD WD WD WD 27 Middlesex 2 4 100 50 28 Norfolk 3 23 100 67 29 Plymouth 3 34 100 67 30 Suffolk WD WD WD WD WD 31 Worcester 1 6 100 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 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 1 39,119 1 3 5 82 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. 5 488 Temperature 1 2 Sedimentation Eutrophication Disease Stranding 2 6 Storm Event 1 NR Wastewater 9 1.019 Animal Waste pH 4 6 Organic Chemicals 2 21 Inorganic Chemicals/Metals 2 70 Mixed Chemicals 1 7 Pesticides Nutrients Salinity Changes Petroleum 1 10 Chlorine Red Tide Predation Unspecified Total 28 1,628 4 39.126 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 17 2 45 7 79 19 39,273 9 39,614 2 5 1 1 3 9 1 NR 12 1,036 4 6 2 21 3 71 1 7 2 45 1 10 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 6 79 7 79 Industrial 19 1,147 19 1,147 Urban 1 5 1 1 1 3 3 9 Impoundment 1 1 1 1 Water- Related 3 460 4 8 7 468 Silviculture Wildland Mining Military Unspecified 3 15 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 2 4 11 1,025 Accidental Release 1 NR 1 NR Spill 3 32 1 13 4 45 Spraying 1 15 1 15 Natural 3 460 5 39,127 8 39,587 Drawdown 3 9 1 3 4 12 Dredging or Drilling Unspecified 8 107 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 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 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 WD WD WD 2 WD WD 1 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 ND 33 17 9 9 4 100 100 67 ND 100 100 ND 94 98 100 97 98 100 57 WD 79 82 77 WD 80 75 67 WD 33 67 67 33 73 46 55 50 50 60 44 100 57 67 75 67 WD WD 63 53 54 70 58 WD 3 WD WD WD WD 3 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 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 WD WD 67 WD 100 60 WD WD WD 88 50 100 WD WD 100 WD 100 WD 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 20 WD WD WD WD WD WD WD WO WD 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 WD 88 WD WD 100 100 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 WD 1 WD WD WD WD WD WD 1 WD WD WD WD WD 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 ■> o is o o C — Q) (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 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) CM ^ *- O OJ O q o *- CM r- O t- O CO nocMCMir)'-' 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 Q. J CO Z CU o ■* 5? CD r -* 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 r-cuoin o ooory 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 CO b cdO c iS V CO — . . 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; 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 -p Q. CD Q) (fl •- a 2 ® < (J5" tn 2 q Q 5 c eg CD JC * V) a 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 C 'It CD c= CO CO c O r CD CO > CO ?- '1 co Z. 2 CI < CD 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 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 9 Brunswick 1 2 100 10 Camden WD WD WD WD WD 11 Carteret 5 38 60 20 12 Chowan 1 1 100 100 13 Columbus 4 8 100 100 14 Craven 15 1,216 60 80 15 Cumberland 2 40 100 100 16 Currituck WD WD WD WD WD 17 Dare 2 30,001 100 100 1 18 Duplin 4 3 75 50 19 Edgecombe 3 2 100 20 Gates WD WD WD WD wo 21 Greene WD WD WD WD WD 22 Halifax 1 15 100 23 Harnett 2 1 50 100 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 28 Lenoir 3 31 100 67 29 Martin 1 2 100 30 Nash WD WD WD WD WD 31 New Hanover 6 237 100 67 32 Northampton WD WD WD WD WD 33 Onslow 7 606 86 86 34 Pamlico 8 60,070 75 100 2 35 Pasquotank 4 23 100 25 36 Pender 1 10 100 100 37 Perquimans WD WD WD WD WO 38 Pitt 3 22 100 100 39 Richmond WD WD WD WD WD 40 Robeson 3 4 100 67 41 Sampson 6 8 100 83 42 Scotland 1 <1 100 43 Tyrrell 1 WR 44 Union WD WD WD WD wo * Wake WD WO WD WD WD 45 Washington 4 37 75 75 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 1 NR 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 ND 100 57 100 67 88 100 100 78 50 ND ND ND 33 50 33 ND 72 ND ND ND 100 ND 100 ND ND 100 ND 11 ND ND WD WD WD WD WD WD WD WD WD WD 1 WD 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 * 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 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 99 Wayne 1 73 100 Subtotal 33 27,192 100 100 1 Florida 100 Alachua 1 <1 100 100 101 Baker 2 2 100 100 102 Bradford WD WD WD WD WD 103 Brevard 39 7,365 100 85 104 Broward 277 1,288 100 93 105 Clay 8 41 100 75 106 Columbia Data found in the Gull of Mexico Region. 107 Dade 87 364 100 80 108 Duval 56 15,273 82 70 1 109 Flagler 1 30 100 100 110 Hendry Dafa found in the Gulf of Mexico Region. 111 Indian River 14 58 100 79 112 Lake 10 966 100 70 113 Marion 14 167,850 93 50 4 114 Martin 24 90 96 92 115 Monroe Data found in the Gulf of Mexico Region. 116 Nassau ND WD WD WD WD 117 Okeechobee 9 200 100 100 118 Orange 18 360,234 89 72 2 119 Osceola WD WD WD WD WD 120 Palm Beach 383 1,748 100 96 121 Putnam WD WD WD WD WD 122 St. Johns 6 4,800 100 100 123 St. Lucie 61 290 100 90 124 Seminole 12 79,614 100 58 1 125 Union 2 1 50 100 126 Volusia 18 2.220 94 83 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 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 68 5,200 99 5,634 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 6 132 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 2 1 3 1 Eutrophication 3 14 12 40.196 15 135 99 533 129 40,878 Disease 8 131 8 131 Stranding 1 1 2 10 2 25 3 12 7 2,543 15 2,591 Storm Event 1 200 1 1 3 519 9 2,726 14 3,446 Wastewater 3 5 8 26 6 163 17 13,718 34 13,912 Animal Waste 1 12 4 42 2 45 1 10 8 109 PH 1 2 1 2 Organic Chemicals 1 10 2 81 1 200 4 291 Inorganic Chemicals Metals 2 3 1 6 3 9 Mixed Chemicals 1 20 2 8 2 6 7 300.015 12 300,049 Pesticides 9 47 29 216 18 15,224 56 15,488 Nutrient 1 3 15 61.383 16 61,386 Salinity Changes 2 5 22 94.286 3 31 4 81 31 94,403 Petroleum 2 <1 2 2 3 82 1 <1 8 85 Chlorine 1 <1 1 <1 Red Tide 1 3 1 <1 2 3 Predation 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 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 3 26,114 21 2,035 74 173.025 Silviculture 1 20 1 20 Wildland Mining Military 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 Virginia 3 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 1 1 1 21 6 66 19 9,006 27 9,094 Accidental Release 5 16 3 180 2 93 8 33 18 322 Spill 4 3 7 7 2 82 3 8 16 100 Spraying 2 2 3 28 3 51 8 81 Natural 12 20,061 65 195,517 3 1 3 26.114 32 3,751 115 245,445 Drawdown 1 <1 2 25 1 3 3 2,540 7 2,569 Dredging or Drilling 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 1 100 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 1 100 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 ND 100 75 75 100 88 100 100 75 100 ND ND 100 ND 100 100 100 80 100 92 89 94 67 100 ND 100 ND 67 100 88 ND ND 1 1 WD WD WD WD 2 WD ND 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 Subtotal 2 14 100 50 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 1 100 100 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 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 64 Harrison 2 4 50 100 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 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 1 Allen ND WD WD ND ND 2 Ascension 5 12 80 80 3 Assumption 9 547 89 89 4 Avoyelles ND WD WD WD ND 5 Beauregard ND ND WD ND ND 6 Calcasieu 5 33 60 80 7 Cameron 3 3 33 100 8 East Baton Rouge 17 144 82 71 9 East Feliciana ND ND WD WD ND 10 Evangeline ND ND WD WD ND 11 Iberia 8 73 38 100 12 Iberville 14 222 79 71 13 Jefferson 7 13 43 71 * Jefferson Davis 2 NR 100 14 Lafayette 4 970 50 75 15 Lafourche 13 56 54 100 16 Livingston 1 6 100 100 17 Orleans 9 14 44 78 18 Plaquemines 5 873 80 100 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 23 St. Charles 7 115 29 86 24 St. Helena ND WD WD WD ND 25 St. James 5 24 80 100 26 St. John the Baptist 1 NR 100 27 St. Landry 1 4 100 100 28 St. Martin 1 Wfl 100 29 St. Mary 4 778 75 100 30 St. Tammany 13 109 69 85 31 Tangipahoa 6 7 67 83 32 Terrebonne 14 1,144 43 93 33 Vermilion 2 10 50 50 34 Vernon ND WD WD ND ND 35 Washington ND WD WD ND ND 36 West Baton Rouge 3 9 100 67 37 West Feliciana 2 460 50 100 Subtotal 172 6,590 61 85 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 40 Austin 2 5 100 100 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 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 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 56 Harris 66 231,757 59 80 3 57 Hidalgo 1 1 100 100 58 Jackson 1 100 100 5? Jasper 3 245 100 100 60 Jefferson 20 1,821 75 80 61 Jim Hogg ND WD WD WD WD 62 Jim Wells 1 NR 63 Karnes ND ND WD WD WD 64 Kenedy 1 40 100 65 Kleberg 4 25 100 66 Lavaca 3 20 67 67 67 Liberty 6 27 33 83 68 Live Oak ND ND WD WD WD 69 McMullen ND ND WD WD WD 70 Matagorda 24 5.969 54 88 71 Newton 4 NR 75 72 Nueces 15 49.484 60 80 2 73 Orange 14 8.415 79 79 74 Refugio 3 5 67 67 75 San Jacinto ND WD WD WD WD 76 San Patricio 5 33,260 60 100 1 77 Starr 1 1 100 100 78 Tyler WD WD WD WD WD 79 Victoria 1 NR 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 100 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 Florida 3 Georgia 3 Alabama Mississippi Lou siana Texas Total Year e k e k e k e k e k e k e k 1980 25 56 7 194 2 158 58 1 ,095,440 92 1,095,848 1981 32 59,704 1 1 2 10 76 52 56,061 96 115,843 1982 24 3,662 2 10 5 4 66 78.534 97 82,209 1983 24 30,782 1 3 3 1 17 220 52 74,994 97 106,000 1984 26 22,911 12 118,753 22 412 22 235,828 82 377,904 1985 26 1,350 3 3 1 20 22 978 52 2,352 1986 30 10,938 3 70 2 55 38 3,323 9 1 82 14,387 1987 16 115 10 12,934 1 4 16 487 15 6 58 13,546 1988 21 317 2 2 1 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 Georgia 3 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 23 131,901 63 1,577 119 1,173.795 321 1,337,220 Temperature 17 421 1 20,000 5 753 18 39.617 41 60.791 Sedimentation 6 359 5 20 11 379 Eutrophication 15 51,206 1 2 4 5 6 13.015 26 64,228 Disease 4 19 1 <1 2 <1 8 20 15 39 Stranding 6 134 5 3 5 5,169 16 5,306 Storm Event 7 164 1 20 17 1,009 23 43,375 48 44,569 Wastewater 11 1,255 1 3 10 44 21 1,058 29 224,624 72 226.984 Animal Waste 3 815 3 7 1 1.000 7 1,822 PH 2 3 2 <1 4 3 Organic Chemicals 2 2 1 4 3 88 1 NR 7 94 Inorganic Chemicals/Metals 4 84 1 NR 3 577 18 51.713 26 52,375 Mixed Chemicals 10 1 1 ,647 3 12 5 4 6 6.598 24 18,261 Pesticides 10 379 1 NR 2 NR 13 3.765 26 4,143 Nutrients 12 1,557 2 5 5 404 19 1.966 Salinity Changes 3 59 1 NR 2 13 6 72 Petroleum 1 50 2 NR 20 28.594 23 28,644 Chlorine 2 75 2 75 Red Tide 1 1,909 8 <1 9 1,909 Predation 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 7 43 11 4,893 24 5,031 Industrial 12 61.000 1 11 1 10 29 2,179 54 12,332 97 75,532 Urban 56 3.153 1 3 10 42 21 85 58 273,098 146 276,381 Impoundment 16 1.457 4 134 36 1,073 13 31,260 69 33,923 Water- Related 18 2.215 1 68 5 20,079 14 927 67 594,179 105 617,468 Silviculture Wildland Mining 1 4 1 NR 5 2 7 6 Military Unspecified 141 62.154 28 131.713 2 2 64 2,283 147 677,116 382 873,268 Total 250 130,079 2 14 44 131,967 7 20,081 172 6,590 355 1,592,880 830 1,881,610 Fish-Kill Events by Incident, 1980-1989 Florida ' Georgia 1 Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Incident e k e k e k e k e k e k e k Runoff 48 279 1 NR 8 57 23 21,348 80 21,685 Routine Release 6 10.056 3 11 23 1,945 26 798 58 12,809 Accidental Release 6 207 1 3 3 24 16 138 23 3,660 49 4,032 Spill 7 1.826 1 NR 2 460 32 1,835 42 4,121 Spraying 5 118' 1 NR 4 3,760 10 3,878 Natural 26 2,570 6 204 5 20,079 43 1,251 71 615,259 151 639,364 Drawdown 1 1 4 6 2 190 7 197 Dredging or Drilling i 1,000 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 2 Contra Costa 6 65 100 67 3 Del Norte WD ND WD WD WD 4 Humboldt 1 <1 100 100 5 Los Angeles 12 5,739 100 83 6 Marin 11 25 100 82 7 Mendocino 2 1 100 100 8 Monterey 9 200 100 56 9 Napa 1 1 100 100 10 Orange 5 66 80 60 11 Placer WD WD WD WO WD 12 Sacramento 7 28 86 43 13 San Benito ND WD WD WD WD 14 San Bernardino ND WD WD WD WD 15 San Diego 2 14 100 100 16 San Francisco 1 500 100 100 17 San Joaquin 27 396 100 78 18 San Luis Obispo 13 160 100 85 19 San Mateo 17 280 94 65 * Santa Barbara 5 363 80 60 20 Santa Clara 6 15 100 83 21 Santa Cruz 5 525 100 80 22 Siskiyou 1 101 100 100 23 Solano 3 3 100 24 Sonoma 5 107 100 100 25 Sutter 1 1 100 100 26 Trinity WD WD WD WD WD 27 Ventura WD WD WD WD WD 28 Yolo 2 162 100 100 Subtotal 148 9,267 97 74 Oregon 29 Benton WD ND WD WD WD 30 Clackamas 6 165 67 67 31 Clatsop WD WD WD WD WD 32 Columbia 8 13 75 88 33 Coos 2 45 50 100 34 Curry 1 5 100 35 Douglas 3 283 100 67 36 Jackson WD ND WD WD WD 37 Josephine 1 123 100 100 38 Lane 5 37 100 60 39 Lincoln 4 16 100 100 40 Multnomah 9 186 89 56 41 Polk WD WD WD WD WD 42 Tillamook 1 2 100 100 43 Washington WD WD WD WD WD 44 Yamhill ND WD WD WD WD Subtotal 40 874 90 73 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 46 Clark 4 16 50 75 47 Cowlitz 2 NR 100 48 Grays Harbor 2 525 100 100 49 Island 2 25.700 50 100 1 50 Jefferson ND ND WD WD WD 51 King 39 1,037 79 56 52 Kitsap 1 2 100 53 Lewis 1 99 100 100 54 Mason 2 3 100 55 Pacific ND ND WD WD WD 56 Pierce 9 212 89 100 57 Skagit 3 20 33 100 58 Skamania WD ND WD WD WD 59 Snohomish 16 859 75 81 60 Thurston 5 3,554 80 100 61 Wahkiakum ND WD WD WD WD Whatcom 16 640 75 75 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 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 28 706 38 1.417 9 124 9 13 18 136 2 <1 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 8 82 Sedimentation 1 150 1 150 Eutrophication 1 <1 1 2 1 1 3 3 Disease 5 90 2 <1 7 90 Stranding 6 439 3 400 3 262 12 1.101 Storm Event 1 51 1 51 Wastewater 8 676 6 952 14 1.628 Animal Waste 5 50 21 853 26 903 PH 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 1 5 Salinity Changes 2 149 2 149 Petroleum 5 47 3 <1 7 98 15 145 Chlorine 11 5.247 3 48 10 458 24 5,753 Red Tide Predation 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 1 101 Wildland Mining Military 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 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 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 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 > , a m CM co O CM < CO 90 > eg z z V 2 - >- in UL < in to CO > C\J >- > Q 2 - Q >- LO in CM in co 4- >- < tO CO r-- >■ CM > z CO —I - z O O LO < m > CO z z V _l CO > O in co Q CD >- C\J z z C\J _l - > O 10 2 UL. < o CO >- CM z > O I - z 2 LO ! !"■ LL. < in CO z CM >- z 1 _J co > 5 m a 2 < LO CO z CO z z O *A i co z in s «- < LU SO 9° >- CM >- z co > < LO 00 > CO >- z 2: ^ Q > Q OU-. o> > CM >- z CD 2 co z LO a 5 Ocl CDQ >* CO > - >- > CO 2 CO z 2 CO LL < o CO CD >- - z > V _i CO z m CM LO O O O < o LO CO > CO >- z 5 Q 2 z O O Q 2 O < in CO Q z CM z z CM _i Q 2 z in CM LO LO CM 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 O m O m < CO co > CO z z V _i CO >- m in h» LO CM 1- < o SP CO CO z CM > > O to 2 2 CO > O O < o CO z - z z - 5 co z in CM O O 8 Q •- CD CVJ CO > CO z z 'v _i CO z O O m CM 8 cd"-. c*- CD CO 3 2 0> 9° ■ c J- CO w CD e CD C s 3 ro ro ° £3 CO CO CO — C 5 E E © CO c TJ 0} c a. a) c CO T3 tf a. a. 90 c 3 ■0 3 ■0 3 O CD a. ro tr a. CO c in to t: ro c CO E a) CO c 0) O) 3 a. E CO e a. 3 a) CD E CO E ro 01 tr R a. 3 c ro N C CO PS ~ T3 ro CO c 5 g CL CD E cd Ol o > CO CO ra ■a 0) cu a E 3 CO CO ro c c ro CO 3 to UJ t Q. © > c CO 01 c ro £ CD O) O CO TO ro c y CD CD O) ro c D CO n Z a— S ro co g c S co y is <3" (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 «§ E "" 3. o2u c ro o o u co 112 ro 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 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 © w o ro . © 01 o » £ .£ « ™ g ,2 1 8 I". H 5 ~° 8 s o o 5 ■ • 01 < O £ s 69 k ooo^ ] °00q mm >«0t.