Table Of Content

2-F Si/V CI 5 5. 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 CoverPhoto Oyster Creek, Texas Fish Kill by George Guillen Texas WaterCommission 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-killreporting approach to understanding these coupled with low-flow conditions; programsaroundthe Nation effects is to compile information or in many cases, to a more varygreatly, theyindicate that on fish kills. complex combination of human- fish kills have notbeen a related and natural factors such pervasiveproblem in the Although assessments based as oxygen depletion resulting Nation's estuarine andcoastal solely on fish kills provide only from algal blooms stimulated by areas. However, recurring kills partial and conservative infer- nutrients carried in nonpoint or "hotspots"do occurin some ences of pollutant effects, they source runoff. areas. can provide useful information on the spatial and temporal dimen- The information compiled should This report summarizes results of sions of potential problems. For be useful to environmental efforts across the Nation to example, the information com- managers and planners at the identify, report, and assess the piled in this report contains data Federal, State, and local level to causes of fish kills in coastal on the date, location, and pinpoint "problem" areas. Com- rivers, streams, and estuarine probable cause of kills. Ana- piling this information into a waters between 1980 and 1989. lyzed together, these factors can consistent national framework The location, extent, severity, help identify areas where recur- provides decisionmakers con- timing, and cause of over 3,600 ring problems exist. cerned with regional or national fish-kill events are documented. issues with the ability to target Data are shown for the 22 states The data also provide a temporal areas of concern or devise a bordering the Atlantic, Gulf of record that can be used to help more uniform approach to data Mexico, and Pacific coasts evaluate evidence of trends in collection. (Figure 1). water quality. Fish-kill events can be related to specific human These data are being used in It would be ideal if information activities such as an accidental two on-going projects in the was available on the effects of pesticide spill or the discharge of National Oceanic and Atmo- pollutants on all aquatic organ- high levels of chlorine disinfec- spheric Administration's (NOAA) isms. However, this is not the tant from a wastewater treatment Strategic Environmental Assess- case and very little is known plant. Events are also linked to ments (SEA) Division. First, fish- about how the variety of pollut- natural phenomena such as kill information will be used to ants released to the environment oxygen depletion resulting from evaluate the effects of agricul- affects these organisms. One sustained periods of hot weather, tural pesticide use in coastal Figure 1. Fish-Kill Events Reportedin 22 CoastalStates, 1980-1989 — r~ t m 14 ^J<^ North Atlantic [ V Pacific ^^ ^M f Middle Atlantic i ^te. i\ \' 2 fcU South Atlantic Numberof Events \ 181 to 1292 V 112 to 181 Gulf of Mexico 32 fo 112 | 1 to 32 Introduction areas (Pait et al.. 1991). Sec- kill reporting program(s). to collect data on fish kills for ond, they will be used to assess However, only 1 1 states indi- inclusion in the 305(b) water- nutrient enrichment problems in cated that fish-kill events are quality assessment reports. the Nation's estuaries through used as an environmental NOAA's National Estuarine indicator in their water-quality InJanuary 1991, EPAdiscontinued its Eutrophication Survey (Hinga et assessments or in Federal fish-kill reporting program dueto al.. 1991). assessments such as the competing program priorities. biennial reports required by State Programs section 305(b) of the Clean State participation in the Water Act (Environmental Law program was voluntary and has State agencies investigate and Institute, 1988) (Appendix B). d1e9c7l9i.neIdns1i9g8ni8f,icoannltyly1s2inocfe22 dboeccauumseentthfeisyh-tkyilpliceavlleyntssignal a EPA Fish-Kill Data Base ctooaEsPtaAl.stAagteenscrieepsoritnesdevfeisrhalkills severe environmental stress on states appeared to have been a waterbody. Each agency's The U.S. Environmental Protec- unaware of EPA's program. In immediate goal is to identify and tion Agency (EPA) fish-kill addition, the data collected only correct the cause of the prob- reporting program is a continua- included pollution-related fish lem. Events are documented so tion of the U.S. Public Health kills and not those attributed to that a record of the magnitude Service program that tracked natural phenomena. Conse- and probable cause exists in events from 1960 to 1971. It is quently, a significant cause of case an attempt is made to the only program that (until fish kills (natural phenomena) recover costs for the resource recently) has collected informa- is not accounted for in the EPA injury. tion nationwide on fish-kill data base. The EPA data base events. Although EPA has not was only of limited use for this Eighteen of 22 coastal states published a report since 1976, it report (about a third of the einndviicraotnemdetnhtaatlreemseprongdeinncgytwoaasn coonnftiisnhukeidllstounctoilllercetceinntlfyo.rmaEtPioAn tihnefoErmPaAtidonatparbeasseen)t.ed is from the primary purpose of their fish- encourages states to continue Table 1 . Summary ofReported Fish-Kill Events in CoastalStates, 1980-1989 Item 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Numberofstatesreporting 21 21 16 15 17 18 20 20 19 18 Numberofevents 279 358 283 283 263 340 519 424 464 442 Eventsthatreportednumber offishkilled 243 308 226 252 222 303 453 331 375 368 Totalestimatednumber offishkilled(millions) 138 97 12 22 41 33 24 4 32 6 Averagesizeofkill(thousands) 567 316 51 86 184 108 52 12 85 16 Largestkillreported(millions) 50 30 2 4 22 8 2 1 18 3 Reportswhereextentofarea affectedwasstated 106 114 70 67 54 61 77 68 52 34 Flowingwaterbodies Numberofevents 80 85 61 57 48 47 63 52 43 25 Milesofstreamaffected 232 309 77 96 173 94 170 73 66 30 Lakesandreservoirs: Numberofevents 26 29 9 10 6 14 14 16 9 9 Acresaffected 16 113 1 1 <1 2 3 6 1 1 Introduction Data Collection and Figure 2. SummaryofFish-Kill Events from 1980-1989 for22 Verification Coastal States 600 150 Data were obtained by either a state compiling and sending 500 NOAA hard copy or digital files, or by the project team making a ^ 400- 100 « site visit. Site visits were made to Maryland, Virginia, Oregon, ° 300- and Washington. 200- -50 Information on fish-kill events and on the operation of report- 100- ing program(s) was collected from each state and entered into a NOAA data base. Data 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 collected on each reportedfish- (21) (21) (16) (15) (17) (18) (20) (20) (19) (17) kill event included: 1) name Year and type of waterbody; 2) (NumberofStatesReporting) location (county, nearest town, and latitude and longitude This NOAA-developed data coordinates where available); Major Data Elements base was also compared to 3) date of kill; 4) cause of kill; for Each Event EPA's data base. Event records 5) species and number of fish or parts of records were added, killed; 6) extent of area af- lLaannddu-suesefrCoamuwsheichideantpioflileustatnhtetypeof where appropriate. Sixty-two fected; and 7) duration of associatedwith an eventoriginated percent of the events in the critical effects. Special empha- (e.g., agricultural, industrial, urban, NOAA data base came from sis was placed on obtaining impoundment, silviculture, wildland, State agencies, 7 percent from information describing the mining, ormilitaryoperations). Events local agencies, and 31 percent associated with eutrophication, low- cause of each event. dissolvedoxygen, etc., weretermed from EPA. "water-related." When the data provided for an Information was also collected event were insufficient to Source identifies the physical entityor on selected characteristics of activityfromwhich a pollutant associ- characterize the cause, the ated with an eventoriginated (e.g., each State's reporting label "unspecified" was farm, industrial plant, wastewater program(s) to better understand assigned. For a "land-use" treatmentplant, orcanal). the Nation's infrastructure for cause, 60 percent of all records Incident describesthe action that fish-kill reporting. Information on were assigned "unspecified"; introduced a pollutant to awaterbody program organization, investiga- for incident, 62 percent; and for (e.g., runoff, routine oraccidental tion procedures, on-site and off- direct cause, 21 percent. In releases, spill, spraying, natural, site testing of fish tissue and cases where the cause re- drawdown, anddredging ordrilling water samples, documentation, activities). ported did not reflect a naturally distribution of fish-kill-related or human-induced change in DirectCause liststhe actual causefor information, and use of the data water quality, the event was afish kill (e.g., low-dissolved oxygen, and publications is presented in omitted. For example, kills pesticide, stranding, pH, temperature, Appendix B. ornutrients). caused by commercial fishing operations, recreational fisher- SpecificPollutant namesthe specific Limitations of the Data men discards, underwater agentthatcaused afish kill. explosions, vandalism, spawn- Interpretation of the data pre- ing stress, stocking stress, sented and any conclusions catch and release stress, and To verify the information drawn must be tempered with a entrapment in live bait boxes collected, all data were re- clear understanding of the were omitted. viewed by the participating limitations of the data. State agencies. Introduction Figure 3. Sites ofMajor Fish-Kill Events from 1980-1989 for22 Coastal States Top Ten Fish Kills CountySlate Waterbody FishKilled (millions) Galveston.TX JollyRogersCanal 50 Orange.FL LakeApopka 30 AnneArundel,MD ChesapeakeBay 25 Galveston.TX GullofMexico 21 Galveston,TX ClearCreek 20 Kent.DE LittleRiver 18 Harris.TX SanJacintoBay-East 15 Wicomico.MD NanticokeRiver 14 Lancaster.VA MulberryCreek-Headwaters 11 Chambers.TX OldRiver 10 f Major Kill Events (>1 million) How Complete are the Data? severity of an event. Neverthe- inadequate number of staff to An important part of data less, almost 80 percent of all investigate all events. collection was to determine by events contained some informa- state the proportion documented tion on the direct cause and 84 • The emphasis a state places of all probable fish kills occur- percent contained at least an on the type ofevent to investi- ring over the 10-year period. approximation of the number of gate. For example, some states Twelve of the 22 states indi- fish killed. only investigate kills of economi- cated that their reporting cally important fish species, programs documented more Factors that Influenced Re- while other states respond to all than 50 percent of all probable porting. The extent to which a kills. kills during the period. The fish-kill event is reported and states that reported the most how completely it is documented • The size ofthe population complete coverage (76-100%) depends on several factors. surrounding a waterbody. Fish were Maine. New Hampshire, kills are reported more often Massachusetts. Pennsylvania. • Howa state assigns responsi- around densely populated areas Delaware. North Carolina, and bility for investigating fish kills. In at least in part because more South Carolina. The two states some states, a single agency is people witness and report the that reported the least amount responsible. In others, responsi- event. Kills occurring in of coverage (1-25%) were bility is assigned by geographic sparsely settled areas often go California and Washington region or type of waterbody unreported. (Appendix B). (fresh versus marine). In this case, fish-kill information is more • The timeliness ofthe investi- Not all the events documented dispersed and, therefore, more gation. If the investigation does contained the same information difficult to collect. not take place promptly, fish regarding direct causes and wash downstream, sink, or are numbers of fish killed. Informa- • The staffavailable to investi- eaten by scavengers, lowering tion varied by state and within gate events. In states with small the number and possibly the states, depending on available budgets for fish-kill reporting species of fish reported killed. resources and the perceived programs, there may be an In addition, the contaminant or Introduction environmental condition causing ber). The month with the events took place in 39 counties an event may be diluted or single greatest number of within 14 states. The greatest degraded so that a direct cause events was August, while the concentration of these events can no longer be attributed to a greatest number of fish killed was in Galveston (8) and kill. was in June. Chambers (5) counties in Texas; Anne Arundel (8) and Although no absolute conclu- Geographical Distribution. Wicomico (5) counties in sions can be drawn from fish-kill States reporting the most fish- Maryland; and Beaufort County data alone, combining the data kill events were Florida (1 ,292), (6), North Carolina. with other information on pollu- Maryland (455), Texas (355), tion releases and environmental and South Carolina (191). The The largest reported fish kill quality can provide useful top five counties with the occurred in the Jolly Rogers insights to analysts and greatest number of events Canal, Jamaica Beach, decisionmakers. were Palm Beach, FL (383); Galveston County, Texas, Broward, FL (277); Anne where an estimated 50-million National Results Arundel, MD (182); Dade, FL fish died (Figure 3). The kill (87); and Beaufort, SC (73) occurred in June 1980 and was From 1980 to 1989, over 3,650 (Appendix A). attributed to low-dissolved fish-kill events were reported in oxygen from unspecified 533 coastal and near coastal States reporting the most fish sources. The only species counties in 22 states. These killed were Texas (159 million), reported killed was gulf menha- events involved over 407 million Florida (77 million), Maryland den (Brevoortia patronus). fish. The number of events (68 million), Delaware (28 reported was highest in 1986 million) and North Carolina (26 Many different combinations of (519), and the greatest number million) (Appendix A). The top land-use causes and direct of fish killed was in 1980 (138 five counties with the greatest causes result in major fish-kill million) (Table 1). The land-use number of fish killed were events (Table 2). However, the cause, incident, and direct cause Galveston, TX (106 million); majority of these events is most frequently cited were urban Orange, FL (36 million); Anne characterized by low-dissolved land use, natural events, and Arundel, MD (36 million); Kent, oxygen, high temperatures low-dissolved oxygen. DE (24 million); and Harris, TX (summer months), a large area (23 million) (Appendix A). of water with poor circulation, Trends andSeasonal Varia- and involves small fish such as tions. During the 10-year Sources and Causes. The menhaden (Brevoortia sp.) that period, the number of states land-use causes most fre- tend to school in large numbers reporting events in estuarine and quently cited were urban and are very intolerant of low- coastal waters varied from 15 in (13%), industrial (7%), and dissolved oxygen conditions. 1983 to 21 in 1980 and 1981 agriculture (4%). The top three Although events occur where a (Figure 2). Consequently, fish- incidents introducing pollutants relatively toxic substance is kill events are difficult to evaluate into a waterbody were naturally released or spilled causing accurately over time. However, occurring conditions (16%), considerable damage to fish, an upward trend exists in the runoff (7%), and routine these events occur less fre- number of events and a down- releases (5%). The direct quently and tend to be more ward trend in the number of fish causes most frequently cited localized, killing fewer fish. killed nationwide (Figure 2). were low-dissolved oxygen (41%), wastewater (5%), The families of fish most Seasonal variations play an eutrophication (5%), and commonly involved in a kill important role in the timing of pesticides (4%). event are Clupeidae (menha- fish-kill events. As might be den, shad, herring). expected, the largest number of Centrarchidae (sunfish. bluegill. events (64%) and the highest MajorFish Kills. Eighty-six bass), and Cyprinidae (carps, number of fish killed (86%) were individual events occurred minnows, dace, chubs, shin- during the warmest months of where an estimated one million ers). Of the above. Clupeidae the year (May through Septem- or more fish were killed. These are involved in 36 percent of all Introduction fish-kill events and account for Table 2. Land-Use Cause and Direct Cause ofMajor Fish Kills from 61 percent of the total number 1980-1989 for22 Coastal States of fish killed. Five sections follow that present Land-usecause/ Total %reports Number %fish killed Directcauseofkill reports offish results for individual coastal (millions) regions: North Atlantic; Middle Atlantic: South Atlantic; Gulf of Industry Mexico: and Pacific. The Eutrophication 1 1 5 1 concluding comments section Wastewater 1 1 1 <1 discusses potential uses of the MixedChemicals 1 1 1 <1 data. Information on the Pesticides 1 1 1 <1 Subtotal 4 5 8 <1 number of events and fish killed by region. State, and county, Urban and information on State Low-DissolvedOxygen 1 1 1 <1 reporting programs are provided Eutrophication 1 1 1 <1 Wastewater 2 2 22 6 in Appendices A and B. MixedChemicals 1 1 30 8 Nutrients 1 1 6 2 Subtotal 6 7 60 16 Impoundments Low-DissolvedOxygen 2 2 6 2 Temperature 1 1 2 1 Subtotal 3 3 8 2 Water-Related Low-DissolvedOxygen 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 SalinityChange 3 3 7 2 Subtotal 30 35 129 35 Unspecified 43 50 169 45 Total 86 100 375 100